Karen Attiah
Lazy Caturday Reads
Posted: October 26, 2024 Filed under: 2024 presidential Campaign, Afternoon Reads, American Fascists, cat art, caturday, Donald Trump, Kamala Harris 2024 | Tags: Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, news, Patrick Soon-Shiong, politics, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post 12 CommentsGood Afternoon!!
Yesterday, Dakinikat wrote about the shameful abdication of responsibility by the owners of the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post. The Times’s Patrick Soon-Shiong and the Post’s Jeff Bezos interfered with the plans of their editorial boards in fear of what another Trump presidency could mean to their bottom lines. Both owners decreed that their newspapers would not endorse a candidate for president in 2024.
At The Wrap, Ross A. Lincoln has a piece on the extensive project that the LA Times owner chose to shut down: LA Times Planned ‘Case Against Trump’ Series Alongside Kamala Harris Endorsement Before Owner Quashed It | Exclusive.
Alongside its endorsement of Kamala Harris, the Los Angeles Times editorial board had also planned a multi-part series against Donald Trump before the whole thing was quashed by owner Patrick Soon-Shiong, TheWrap has learned.
According to internal memos viewed by TheWrap, the series, tentatively called “The Case Against Trump,” would have ran throughout this week. The endorsement of Kamala Harris would then have been published on Sunday.
However, Soon-Shiong ordered the cancellation 0f the series and the endorsement without explanation, current and now former staffers have confirmed, setting off a massive crisis for the 142-year-old paper.
The South African-American billionaire’s interference in his paper’s editorial independence has sparked a rise in canceled subscriptions and several high profile resignations, and there are also signs of growing unrest among staffers.
On Thursday, editorial writer Karin Klein, and Pulitzer Prize-winner Robert Greene, both quit. They followed Editorial Editor Mariel Garza, who resigned in protest on Wednesday. Both Klein and Garza have specifically cited Soon-Shiong’s actions as the reason for their exits.
The owner “vetoed the editorial board’s plan to endorse Kamala Harris for president,” Garza said in her resignation letter. And alluding to the fact that the LA Times has endorsed multiple local/state level candidates, she said canceling the Harris endorsement “undermines the integrity of the editorial board and every single endorsement we make, down to school board races.”
“People will justifiably wonder if each endorsement was a decision made by a group of journalists after extensive research and discussion, or through decree by the owner,” she added.
In a dissembling statement of his own posted Wednesday on the social media site formerly called Twitter, Soon-Shiong blamed the editorial team itself for the lack of an endorsement, yet also essentially confirmed he had in fact shut it down. He said the board “was provided the opportunity” to effectively draw false equivalence between Trump and Harris in op-eds laying out the pros and cons of each candidate.
“Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the editorial board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision,” Soon-Shiong concluded.
“We pitched an endorsement and were not allowed to write one,” Garza shot back in a statement exclusively provided to TheWrap. And Klein, who also called Soon-Shiong a “chickens—,” stated plainly in a note explaining her resignation that “the board was not the one choosing to remain silent. He blocked our voice.”
This is what happens when billionaires control our media.
The Washington Post’s betrayal of their staff and their readers is getting the most attention, because of the newspaper’s long history of speaking truth to power. For example, without the Post’s reporting, Richard Nixon might not have been forced to resign.
When Marty Baron was editor in chief, he inserted the phrase “democracy dies in darkness” at the top of The Washington Post’s front page. Well, the Post has now died and officially no longer supports democracy. The Boston Globe: Former Washington Post editor Marty Baron slams newspaper for not making presidential endorsement.
Marty Baron, the former editor of the Washington Post, blasted the newspaper on Friday for declining to issue an endorsement in this year’s presidential election, framing the decision as a win for Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.
“This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty,” Baron, also the former editor of the Boston Globe, wrote on X. “@realdonaldtrump will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner @jeffbezos (and others). Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.” [….]
Baron’s message followed an announcement from Post publisher William Lewis that the newspaper is “returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.”
The Post, which is owned by Amazon.com co-founder Jeff Bezos, had drafted an endorsement for Vice President Kamala Harris, Oliver Darcy reported on his newsletter Status. Top editorial page editors at the Los Angeles Times resigned this week after the newspaper’s owner, billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, blocked a planned endorsement for Harris.
Baron led the Globe newsroom from 2001 to 2012 before taking the helm at the Post. He retired in 2021.
From members of the Post’s opinion page: Opinion:Post columnists respond.
The Washington Post’s decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake. It represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love. This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them — the precise points The Post made in endorsing Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020. There is no contradiction between The Post’s important role as an independent newspaper and its practice of making political endorsements, both as a matter of guidance to readers and as a statement of core beliefs. That has never been more true than in the current campaign. An independent newspaper might someday choose to back away from making presidential endorsements. But this isn’t the right moment, when one candidate is advocating positions that directly threaten freedom of the press and the values of the Constitution.
Matt Bai
Max Boot
Kate Cohen
E.J. Dionne Jr.
Lee Hockstader
David Ignatius
Heather Long
Ruth Marcus
Dana Milbank
Alexandra Petri
Catherine Rampell
Eugene Robinson
Jennifer Rubin
Karen Tumulty
Erik Wemple
At least The New York Times allowed their editorial board to endorse Harris: The Only Patriotic Choice for President.
It is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump. He has proved himself morally unfit for an office that asks its occupant to put the good of the nation above self-interest. He has proved himself temperamentally unfit for a role that requires the very qualities — wisdom, honesty, empathy, courage, restraint, humility, discipline — that he most lacks.
Windy Day, Jamie Shelman
Those disqualifying characteristics are compounded by everything else that limits his ability to fulfill the duties of the president: his many criminal charges, his advancing age, his fundamental lack of interest in policy and his increasingly bizarre cast of associates.
This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election.
For this reason, regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for president.
Most presidential elections are, at their core, about two different visions of America that emerge from competing policies and principles. This one is about something more foundational. It is about whether we invite into the highest office in the land a man who has revealed, unmistakably, that he will degrade the values, defy the norms and dismantle the institutions that have made our country strong.
As a dedicated public servant who has demonstrated care, competence and an unwavering commitment to the Constitution, Ms. Harris stands alone in this race. She may not be the perfect candidate for every voter, especially those who are frustrated and angry about our government’s failures to fix what’s broken — from our immigration system to public schools to housing costs to gun violence. Yet we urge Americans to contrast Ms. Harris’s record with her opponent’s.
The case for Harris:
Ms. Harris is more than a necessary alternative. There is also an optimistic case for elevating her, one that is rooted in her policies and borne out by her experience as vice president, a senator and a state attorney general.
Over the past 10 weeks, Ms. Harris has offered a shared future for all citizens, beyond hate and division. She has begun to describe a set of thoughtful plans to help American families.
While character is enormously important — in this election, pre-eminently so — policies matter. Many Americans remain deeply concerned about their prospects and their children’s in an unstable and unforgiving world. For them, Ms. Harris is clearly the better choice. She has committed to using the power of her office to help Americans better afford the things they need, to make it easier to own a home, to support small businesses and to help workers. Mr. Trump’s economic priorities are more tax cuts, which would benefit mostly the wealthy, and more tariffs, which will make prices even more unmanageable for the poor and middle class.
Beyond the economy, Ms. Harris promises to continue working to expand access to health care and reduce its cost. She has a long record of fighting to protect women’s health and reproductive freedom. Mr. Trump spent years trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and boasts of picking the Supreme Court justices who ended the constitutional right to an abortion.
Globally, Ms. Harris would work to maintain and strengthen the alliances with like-minded nations that have long advanced American interests abroad and maintained the nation’s security. Mr. Trump — who has long praised autocrats like Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban and Kim Jong-un — has threatened to blow those democratic alliances apart. Ms. Harris recognizes the need for global solutions to the global problem of climate change and would continue President Biden’s major investments in the industries and technologies necessary to achieve that goal. Mr. Trump rejects the accepted science, and his contempt for low-carbon energy solutions is matched only by his trollish fealty to fossil fuels.
As for immigration, a huge and largely unsolved issue, the former president continues to demonize and dehumanize immigrants, while Ms. Harris at least offers hope for a compromise, long denied by Congress, to secure the borders and return the nation to a sane immigration system.
There’s more at the link.
Commentary on these stunning events:
Dan Froomkin at Salon: Billionaires have broken media: Washington Post’s non-endorsement is a sickening moral collapse.
The shocking decision by The Washington Post not to make an endorsement in the presidential election — breaking with a decadeslong tradition — is an extremely powerful statement. A non-endorsement says Donald Trump is a reasonable choice.
It says: We are so terrified of a Trump presidency that we are bending the knee in advance. Most importantly, it makes clear that owner Jeff Bezos doesn’t want to lose government business in a second Trump administration.
I can’t imagine statements any more inappropriate from the newspaper of Watergate, the newspaper I spent 12 years working my ass off for. It’s heartbreaking. It makes me sick to my stomach.
To be clear: Every self-respecting journalist on both the news and opinion sides should be sounding the alarm about a possible second term for Trump. He poses a threat to democracy and a free press. On the news side, that requires brutally honest coverage of the threats Trump presents, with no false equating of the two parties — one of which has rejected reality and democratic values. The Post newsroom is hit or miss on that count. But on the editorial page, this shouldn’t have been a close call (and reportedly wasn’t, until Bezos got involved)….
The very opposite of sounding the alarm is throwing up your hands and saying “well, you decide.”
The Post’s decision Friday comes just days after the Los Angeles Times also decided to forgo an official endorsement. This is no coincidence. Both papers are owned by billionaires whose business and personal interests are paramount.
“I think my fear is, if we chose either one, that it would just add to the division,” the billionaire owner of the LA Times, Patrick Soon-Shiong, told Spectrum News this week.
This makes it more clear than ever: You cannot be a truly independent news organization if you are owned by an oligarch.
No kidding. This disaster has been developing for decades as the media has become more and more centralized and controlled by corporations.
Jonathan V. Last at The Bulwark: The Guardrails Are Already Crumpling.
ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON, the Washington Post announced that it would not be making an endorsement in the presidential race. After that, a number of things happened very quickly.
First, the paper’s former executive editor Marty Baron called the decision “cowardice.”
Second, at least one senior Post opinion writer resigned.
Third, it was leaked that the editor of the editorial page had already drafted the paper’s endorsement of Kamala Harris when publisher Will Lewis—who is a new hire, hailing from the Rupert Murdoch journalism tree—quashed it and then released a CYA statement about how the paper was “returning to its roots” of not endorsing candidates. The Post itself reported that the decision was made by the paper’s owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.
Everything about this story feels like a tempest in a teapot, a boiling story about legacy media fretting over itself in the mirror.
It’s not.
It’s a situation analogous to what we saw in Russia in the early 2000s: We are witnessing the surrender of the American business community to Donald Trump.
By Evelyn Sarah
No one cares about the Washington Post’s presidential endorsement. It will not move a single vote. The only people who care about newspaper editorial page endorsements are newspaper editorial writers.
No one really cares all that much about the future of the Washington Post, either. I mean, I care about it, because I care about journalism and I respect the institution.
But this isn’t a journalism story. It’s a business story.
Following Trump’s 2016 victory, the Post leaned hard into its role as a guardian of democracy. This meant criticizing, and reporting aggressively on, Trump, who responded by threatening Bezos’s various business interests.
And that’s what this story is about: It’s about the most consequential American entrepreneur of his generation signaling his submission to Trump—and the message that sends to every other corporation and business leader in the country. In the world.
Killing this editorial says, If Jeff Bezos has to be nice to Trump, then so do you. Keep your nose clean, bub.
Read on for Last’s comparison of what is happening here to Vladimir Putin’s consolidation of power in Russia.
Benjamin Wittes at The Bulwark: The Washington Post Bends the Knee to Trump.
I NEVER EXPECTED TO SEE THE DAY when the Washington Post would kneel before Donald Trump.
These are not Senate Republicans or conservative donors. This is not a group of people who cower in the face of authoritarianism. The Post editorial board, the writers who write anonymous opinion essays in the name of the paper itself, is a group of bold, pro-democracy intellectuals who have traditionally taken—individually and collectively—courageous stands about democracy and human rights around the world.
The Post’s editorial page is also the institution in which I grew up professionally. I worked there for nearly a decade under both of the last two long-time editorial page editors, Fred Hiatt and Meg Greenfield. It is an institution I revere.
And it is one that has not previously wavered with respect to Trumpist authoritarianism.
Yet today we learn that the editorial board has been stripped of its authority to endorse presidential candidates, having previously decided to endorse Kamala Harris. Instead, the paper announced in a statement from the publisher, William Lewis, that “The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.” [….]
…[T]he Post kneels without offering a word of praise for Trump. It’s just that, for high-minded reasons that it doesn’t really bother to specify, it’s getting out of this whole presidential endorsement business altogether. That was its traditional position, it archly informs us, back in the good old days before Watergate sent the Post on an aberrant jag. And, you see, while it’s perfectly understandable why the Post betrayed its high-minded above-it-allness in the wake of Nixon—when emotions were running high and all—having thought about it, it’s time to once again remove ourselves to the heights of Olympus where we can peer down on the foibles of mortals:
We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects. We also see it as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions—whom to vote for as the next president.
Yet it is a submission nonetheless: One week before the mortals finish voting and might elect an authoritarian, one whose former chief of staff calls him a fascist, the Washington Post has decided that silence is the best way to guide its readers.
Silence, after all, will not offend the authoritarian should he win. Silence, after all, is more than Trump can reasonably expect from the Post. Democracy may die in darkness, as the Post’s motto goes, but silence is apparently a good hedge.
Read the rest at the Bulwark.
Tomorrow, Trump will hold a rally in Madison Square Garden, site of the famous 1939 American Nazi rally.
ABC News: Trump to rally in iconic Madison Square Garden.
In the final week of his campaign, former President Donald Trump will cross off a campaign bucket-list item on Sunday: a rally in the iconic Madison Square Garden. The avid Broadway enthusiast will deliver a matinee performance, complete with musical guests and a host of Republican allies.
It’s a moment Trump has long said he wanted to have in the state where he has faced criminal and civil trials, becoming a convicted felon and mounted a business empire.
“I think it’ll be a great time, and it’s going to be really a celebration of the whole thing, you know, because it’s coming to an end a few days after that. The campaigning; I won’t campaign anymore. Then I’ll be campaigning to make America great,” Trump said about the upcoming Madison Square Garden rally during a local radio interview with Cats & Cosby on Thursday….
In an arena format symbolizing confidence and celebrity status, Trump’s appearance will serve as his closing argument. In contrast, Vice President Kamala Harris makes hers on the Ellipse in Washington, D.C., where Trump spoke on Jan. 6, 2021, ahead of the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The former president, reminiscent of the last nine years campaigning for the highest office in the land, has coined the event as a “celebration of the whole thing.”
“Well, it’s New York, but it’s also sort of, it’s the end of my campaigning. When you think, I mean, I’ve done it now for nine years, we’ve had two great elections. One was better than the other,” Trump said.
On Sunday, Trump will be joined by several surrogates who have appeared with him on the campaign trail — including North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and Vivek Ramaswamy. House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and Conference Chair Elise Stefanik will also be in attendance as well as several family members and donors.
Supposedly Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk will also be there.
Eric Bradner at CNN: Madison Square Garden versus the White House Ellipse: where Trump and Harris are making their final pitches.
Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have honed their closing arguments – and now they’re both turning to famous venues to try to help those messages break through just 10 days from Election Day.
The former president is returning to his hometown on Sunday for a rally in one of New York City’s most iconic landmarks, Madison Square Garden. Two days later, the vice president is holding an event at the Ellipse, the park just outside the South Lawn of the White House, where Trump’s fiery speech nearly four years ago set in motion the attack on the US Capitol.
The two events could deliver key moments in a race that is on a razor’s edge, with CNN’s final nationwide poll showing each candidate with the support of 47% of likely voters.
Both campaigns are urging supporters to cast their ballots early and attempting to reach the vanishingly small pools of undecided voters – or those who know which candidate they prefer but are not sure whether they will vote.
Harris and Trump have made clear the issues they’re highlighting in the campaign’s last days. Harris is leaning into her support for abortion rights, a political winner for Democrats since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. She’s also contrasting her character with Trump’s – a strategy aimed at reaching independents and moderate Republicans.
“Either you have the choice of a Donald Trump, who will sit in the Oval Office stewing, plotting revenge, retribution, writing out his enemies list,” she told reporters Thursday, “or what I will be doing, which is responding to folks, like the folks last night, with a to-do list.”
Trump is hammering the vice president on border security, using dehumanizing language aimed at undocumented immigrants as he focuses on an issue that’s been at the core of his political identity for all three of his presidential runs. It’s part of his broader case that Democrats in four years have undercut the stability and economic successes of his tenure in the Oval Office.
The goals of the two candidates for the rest of the campaign:
In staging a rally at Madison Square Garden, Trump is betting on his own showmanship and celebrity – expecting he can fill the arena in the deep-blue city and hoping that the spectacle will reach television and phone screens in all seven battleground states.
Previewing the final sprint to Election Day, a senior Harris campaign official said to “expect to see more” of the vice president invoking the former president’s description of political opponents as “enemies within” while also describing the race as a decision between Trump’s “enemies list” and her own “to-do list.”
Her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, also deployed that framing for the first time Thursday, as he campaigned in North Carolina.
“She’s got a to-do list. He’s got an enemies list,” Walz said.
Harris’ star-studded rally Thursday night in Georgia – her first campaign appearance with former President Barack Obama, and one that featured several other celebrities – kicked off what the senior campaign official described as the homing in of the campaign’s closing argument. That argument illustrates what a Harris administration would look like compared with the threat Harris says Trump poses, the official said.
The vice president continued that celebrity-fueled push Friday night in Texas – a rare visit to a state that is not a presidential battleground.
I’m going to end there. I will add some other interesting stories in the comment thread. Take care everyone!
Lazy Caturday Reads
Posted: July 27, 2024 Filed under: 2024 presidential Campaign, abortion rights, American Fascists, cat art, Cats, caturday, Donald Trump, Kamala Harris 2024, misogyny | Tags: Christian nationalism, JD Vance, misogyny emergency, Trump as strongman, Trump's ear wound, Trump/Vance weirdness, Turning Point Action, voting rights 19 Comments
Happy Caturday!!
Yesterday Trump gave a speech in Florida to Turning Point Action, a right wing christian group. During the speech, Trump gave this rant:
Trump’s plea to voters last night: “Get out and vote just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, it will be fixed. It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore … In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.”
In that quote from MSNBC’s Kyle Griffin, there is an ellipsis to skip over Trump saying what sounds like “I’m not a christian.” Some are claiming he said “I’m a christian.” That’s not what I heard. You can watch the clip from @Acyn here.
I took this to mean that if Trump is elected, there won’t be any more elections. Some people on Twitter tried to twist it to mean something else or claimed it was a “joke.” After all we have experienced with Trump, those claims just don’t pass muster. Here are some reactions from Twitter.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat @ruthbenghiat: Media: this should be *the* A1 story. I have studied dictatorship for decades and this is it-“you won’t have to vote anymore.” Trump will never leave office if he wins in November.
Pramila Jayapal @PramilaJayapal: This. Is. Terrifying. We cannot let this be the case.
Armando @ArmandoNDK: I don’t know what Trump was trying to say with his no more voting line. He is a moronic inarticulate narcissist. I do know what he’s done. And based on that, if he can get away with it- he would become a dictator. Anyone who doubts Trump is capable of trying is just stupid.
Simon Rosenberg @SimonWDC: There is a reason the Trump campaign has been keeping Trump from the trail – every time he speaks it gets harder for them to win. This promise, in very clear language, to end American democracy for all time is now a major part of the 2024 campaign.
Aaron Rupar and Stephen Robinson at Public Notice: 
While appearing before the House Judiciary Committee Thursday, Wray 
Yesterday, 
And that’s because this incident involved a woman. And she was asking for it.Mostly Monday Reads: We Stand with Her
Posted: July 22, 2024 Filed under: 2024 Elections, 2024 presidential Campaign, American Fascists, Economy | Tags: 2024 Presidential Election, Kamala Harris 26 Comments
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
It’s Deja Vú, All Over Again! President Biden withdrew his name as the Democratic candidate for President in 2024 after a series of bad days and calls by many in the media, donors, and pols to quit the race. Enthusiasm for the candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris is on the rise. Once again, we can hope for leadership that reflects this country and its needs. I’ve been waiting for her first speech as the candidate since these events over the weekend. She is set to speak at the White House on NCAA Sports Day to 1000s of student-athletes shortly.
NCAA Sports Day brings championship teams from the National Collegiate Athletic Association to the White House. Harris also spoke at the event in 2023, which saw more than 1,000 student athletes from nearly 50 teams, according to Harris’ remarks.
Shortly after Biden announced he will not seek reelection Sunday, he threw his support behind Harris as his successor for the Democratic Party’s nominee. Harris said in a statement on X, “I am honored to have the President’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination.”
President Joe Biden has been one of the most consequential American Presidents in History. I am not a Noble Laureate, nor did I attend anything but Public Universities in two States, and I have only taught in public higher institutions and secondary schools. His economic policy record is beyond anything we’ve seen since the policies to end the Great Depression. The good thing is that we’ve learned a lot since then, and we have the computers, statistical chops, and data to determine what works and what doesn’t. He’s heeded these lessons. This analysis is from Jonathan V. Last writing at The Bulwark. “Joe Biden Is Our Greatest Living President. On the most unlikely great president in modern history.”
A president gets, at most, two lines above the fold on his Wikipedia page. That’s it. That’s how history judges them.
Here is Joe Biden’s legacy: He beat back America’s first authoritarian attempt. And when he realized that he could not do it a second time, he stepped away so someone else could.
This is enough to make him—already, today, on July 21, 2024—our greatest living president.
Biden’s presidency was unexpected. Prior to 2020, there had been nothing in his 47-year career to suggest that he was more than a pleasant, ambitious, Irish pol from central casting. He had been a senator, and a man running for president, over the course of four decades. His selection as Barack Obama’s running mate in 2008 seemed like a nice capstone for a rather average career in national politics.
For the first two years of Trump’s presidency, no one expected Biden to challenge him.
But the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville became a hinge-point in which this ordinary politician found his moment.
…
Biden’s administration was not perfect, but was largely successful.
He passed several significant pieces of bipartisan legislation. He fixed the COVID vaccine rollout (which Trump botched) and drove a stake through the heart of the pandemic. He achieved the kind of soft landing on inflation that economists dream about. His handling of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was the single most effective management of a foreign crisis since the end of the Cold War.
But Wikipedia doesn’t care about your CHIPS Act, or your Bipartisan Infrastructure Plan, or your Inflation Reduction Act. It doesn’t care about NATO expansion.
Again, you can feel the mounting support for Vice President Kamala Harris. The money is pouring in, and Donald is likely throwing ketchup everywhere. This is from Newsweek. “Nikki Haley Voters PAC Announces Support for Kamala Harris.”
A coalition of former Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley voters pledged their support for Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris‘ presidential bid on Sunday, hours after President Joe Biden announced that he was dropping out of the race.
Biden announced on Sunday afternoon in a letter that he will not be seeking a second term in this year’s presidential election and threw his support behind Harris. The president’s decision follows weeks of mounting pressure from people within his own party and from key Democratic donors urging him to step aside for the sake of the party’s future after a disastrous debate performance last month against former President Donald Trump.
The political action committee (PAC), previously known as Haley Voters for Biden, which now features Harris’ name, seeks to amplify the voices of former Haley voters in support of Harris’ White House bid.
Craig Snyder, the group’s director, told Newsweek in an email on Sunday afternoon that the organization believes Harris “is best suited to defeat Donald Trump in November.”
“A tough former prosecutor, the Vice President comes from the centrist wing of the Democratic Party, not it’s left most fringe…For Haley voters, all of this puts the Vice President in a sweet spot for them to register their ongoing opposition to [former] President Trump,” he said.
“Voto Latino pledges $44M to support Harris.” This is published by The Hill and reported by Rafael Bernal.
Voto Latino is endorsing Vice President Harris on Monday in her bid for the White House, pledging its entire 2024 campaign budget to her cause.
The civic engagement group, a key player in Latino campaign politics, supported President Biden’s reelection efforts and is a fierce opponent of former President Trump.
“As far right extremists seek to demonize immigrants, shatter our democracy, and curtail our rights at every turn, Vice President Kamala Harris has led the defense of our multicultural democracy. Her long-standing support for working Americans, voting rights, DACA, and for women’s rights have done so much good for our country and the Latino community — and it has never been more important,” said María Teresa Kumar, president of Voto Latino.
Voto Latino’s campaign in 2024 is hitting the road, after a mostly-digital 2020, amid the coronavirus pandemic.
“In 2020, Voto Latino endorsed Joe Biden in the face of an unprecedented threat to our community and our country. His exceptional term has earned our admiration and respect,” Kumar said in a statement Sunday, following Biden’s announcement that he would no longer seek reelection.
“Now more than ever we must unite our efforts to make sure Trump is not elected in November. The stakes have never been higher. If Trump returns to the White House, he’ll execute his anti-democracy and extreme platform. He will continue dehumanizing immigrants and will deploy our military to round-up people who they deem look undocumented. Trump also will expand the cottage industry of detention centers across the nation where no one is safe — U.S. citizens or not,” Kumar said Sunday.
Kumar told The Hill last month that Voto Latino is on track to raise and spend $44 million, up from $36 million four years ago.
The group plans to focus on young Hispanic voters with anti-disinformation, registration and mobilization campaigns in Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.
Politico has this headline this morning. “Kamala Harris clears the path to the nomination as potential challengers fall in line. The rapid demonstration of support was a show of force — and unity — after weeks of unrest and anxiety.” I admit that I feel better already.
It took less than 24 hours for Kamala Harris to all but clear the Democratic presidential field.
Endorsements from a series of governors Monday morning — JB Pritzker of Illinois, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Wes Moore of Maryland and Andy Beshear of Kentucky — effectively ended talk of a serious contest for the party’s nomination after President Joe Biden’s sudden decision Sunday to drop out of the race. Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.), who also briefly flirted with challenging Harris, also said Monday morning that he wouldn’t seek the nomination.
“I am proud to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for president of the United States,” Pritzker said in a statement.
“Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for President of the United States,” Whitmer wrote in her own statement.
“She is the fighter we need at this moment to realize the full promise of our nation,” Moore said.
The rapid demonstration of support was a show of force — and unity — after weeks of unrest and anxiety over whether the president would agree to step aside after his disastrous debate performance in late June.
Again, Donald and his campaign of hate are now in more chaos than usual. Sean Hannity was thrown off his game and had this shocking (not really) headline covered by HuffPo. “MAGA Rages That Kamala Harris Is A Threat To Plastic Straws. Sean Hannity grasped at the argument while alleging Harris will “be the single most radical major party candidate to run for election.” Mediocre white men are fall to pieces when threatened. Maybe he needs a sippy cup like my 3 year old granddaughters use.
As it became clear on Sunday that Vice President Kamala Harris is the front-runner to replace President Joe Biden as the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, pro-Donald Trump conservatives went on TV to fiercely condemn her position on sipping devices.
“I mean, heck, she wants to get rid of plastic straws, for goodness sake,” Jason Miller, a senior adviser to former President Donald Trump’s campaign, told NBC. “Whereas Joe Biden was renting some of the territory on the more extreme left, Kamala Harris owns it.”
In a lengthy monologue on Sunday, Fox News host Sean Hannity said Harris would “be the single most radical major party candidate to run for election.” He went on to condemn her environmental record, including her previous support for ending the oil and gas drilling practice known as fracking and, of course, reining in the use of plastic straws.
“She wants to ban plastic straws,” Hannity grumbled. “I love my plastic straw. I hate those paper straws. Anyway.”
Signe cartoon
TOON13
Kamala Harris
That has to be one of the most ridiculous displays of white male privilege I’ve ever seen. This is from The Atlantic. “This Is Exactly What the Trump Team Feared. A campaign that had been optimized to beat Joe Biden must now be reinvented.” It’s reported by Tim Alberta. How will they have enough time to teach the Reality Star and Crisis Actor his lines? Perhaps all we will hear about is his fear of sharks and obsession with Hannibal Lecter.
In many ways, the convention scene was one of a party peaking too early. Campaigns are marathons measured by changes in momentum and narrative, and Republicans in Milwaukee reveled in what felt like a three-week winning streak, dating back to the debate, in which the daily churn of insider gossip focused ever more on Democratic fatalism and Trump’s seeming inevitability. No Republican I spoke with could remember a longer stretch of uninterrupted forward propulsion. And with Biden appearing to dig in, they left Milwaukee believing that this run of luck might never end.
The president’s abrupt exit dashed any such fantasy. Suddenly, Republicans who had boasted last week about expanding the electoral map—pushing into Minnesota and Virginia and other decidedly blue areas—were fretting about the possibility of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro or Arizona Senator Mark Kelly joining the Democratic ticket, partnering with Harris to put back into play key battlegrounds that just 24 hours earlier seemed to be out of reach.
Given the historic volatility of this campaign—Trump survived an assassination attempt just last weekend—there’s no guarantee that Harris will ultimately succeed Biden atop the ticket. The Trump campaign certainly believes she will—understandably so, given the rapid consolidation of Democratic officials around her following Biden’s announcement—and blasted out a statement Sunday afternoon that tied Harris to her unpopular boss. “Kamala Harris is just as much of [a] joke as Biden is,” Wiles and LaCivita said in a statement. “Harris will be even WORSE for the people of our Nation than Joe Biden. Harris has been the Enabler in Chief for Crooked Joe this entire time. They own each other’s records, and there is no distance between the two.”
This is the essence of what Trump’s campaign believes—that any Democrat who picks up the party’s banner will inherit the baggage that made Biden unelectable. Republicans will point to historic inflation, millions of illegal border crossings, and geopolitical chaos from Eastern Europe to the Middle East as evidence that the entire Democratic Party has failed the American people. “We’ve talked about strength versus weakness, success versus failure,” LaCivita told me before the convention, summarizing the campaign’s strategic vision for the race. “The great thing about that messaging is that it’s not just unique to Joe Biden.”
In other words, they’ll continue to lie about issues at the border, dismiss that Trump told Republicans not to vote for a Republican-written Immigration reformer bill. They’ll cover up his murderous Covid-19 performance and the rest of the stuff. Also, they support dictators so Biden’s success with NATO will never be mentioned. They know that many people question what happened on that day at Butler Farms where one man died and two others were critical wounded. Trump continues to wear his Ear Kotex while not delivering evidence there’s anything in it. Photographs, as we have shared here, suggest it was likely a bit of glass. The campaign is mostly using it as a amarketing tool to extract money from the Cult. And, it is a cult.
I especially like this article and lede in The Guardian. “The post-Biden era may be uncertain for the Democrats, but for Trump it will be utterly dismaying. Whoever is nominated, a fresh choice will be on offer – a far better one than a grudge match between two grumpy old men.” It’s penned by Simon Tisdall.
The unforgiving deadline is 19 August, when the Democratic party national convention opens in Chicago. Thursday 22 August is the day the successful nominee must make her or his acceptance speech. After that, there’s no going back, no time for second thoughts. From then until election day on 5 November, it will be all-out war, a fight to the political death with an extremist Republican ticket in arguably the most consequential election since John F Kennedy narrowly defeated Richard Nixon in 1960.
Will Harris get her party’s nod, or face a damaging internal competition? She has big advantages. The vice-president since 2021, she can count on nationwide name recognition – unlike Trump’s far-right white nationalist running mate, the deservedly obscure JD Vance. She has black and Asian-American roots, a potential plus with minority voters. She is the first ever woman to hold the vice-presidency. And at 59, she is definitely not Joe Biden.
Before joining the White House, Harris was a well regarded prosecutor and senator from California. In office, she has earned a reputation, among those who care to look, for championing women’s rights, education and climate action – and for fighting Republican voter-suppression schemes. She is underestimated and mocked by opponents, as vice-presidents typically are. But she has taken hard knocks and kept going. And she could inherit the $100m Biden-Harris campaign war chest.
For the US’s independent and undecided voters, Harris, crucially, is also not Donald Trump. Instead of a grudge match between two grumpy old men, battering each other bloody like cranky Monty Python knights, a fresh choice may soon be on offer – in terms of personality, energy, policy, tone, trustworthiness and moral integrity. It’s a choice that could bring a generational leap. Come January next year, it’s possible a new, younger morning in the US may dawn.
Indeed, I hope we can finely rid ourselves of Donald and his cult.
I have to say that I am so happy to see so many of our Hillary friends are here again. JJ explained that we’ve been fighting the WordPress AI goblin, which is somehow mistreating comments. I even have trouble commenting on my posts, so don’t despair. If you download the Jetpack app, you can sometimes comment more easily there. Also, we know that some of your comments are going to SPAM, so we’re all on the watch for it! Nothing like getting the old gang back together again!! I am so glad you’re here.
We know what’s at stake. They’ve already taken so many rights away that it’s time we elect people at all levels to stop this.
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Memorial Day Monday Reads
Posted: May 27, 2024 Filed under: American Fascists, fetus fetishists, LGBTQIA+, MAGA Assholes, MAGA goes after the Rule of Law | Tags: #MAGAtrocity at the State Level, Libertarians boo trump, MAGA Agenda, White Christian Nationalism/Fascism 3 Comments
“I thought the Libertarian logo looked familiar too, Mr. Trump.” John Buss, @repeat1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
This is the day we remember those who served and made the ultimate sacrifice for our country and its democracy.
Today is a good day to think about the possibility that everything we know may be forcibly taken away by a cult of white fascist Christians led by a dotard leading a family crime syndicate.
Republican Party of Texas delegates voted Saturday on a platform that called for new laws to require the Bible to be taught in public schools and a constitutional amendment that would require statewide elected leaders to win the popular vote in a majority of Texas counties.
Other proposed planks of the 50-page platform included proclamations that “abortion is not healthcare it is homicide”; that gender-transition treatment for children is “child abuse”; calls to reverse recent name changes to military bases and “publicly honor the southern heroes”; support for declaring gold and silver as legal tender; and demands that the U.S. government disclose “all pertinent information and knowledge” of UFOs.
These people, if they watch the news at all, tend to believe every conspiracy theory pouring out of Fox News. They have what Julie Jeske calls Fox News Brain. Aaron Ruper sums up her findings in the Public Notice.
Are you terrified of migrants squatting in your home or randomly punching you in the face while you walk down the street? Maybe you find yourself thinking a lot about Hunter Biden or gas prices and how they were lower four years ago? Then, dear reader, you probably have Fox News brain.
Juliet Jeske, author of the highly recommended Decoding Fox News newsletter, is one of the world’s foremost experts on that condition.
“Propaganda is a very difficult thing to erase from somebody’s brain,” she told me. “Some people just want to be in that Fox News rage spiral. They’re riding a rollercoaster of fear, paranoia, and hate. And people enjoy that. They enjoy sitting in their homes and being angry at the world. I don’t understand that mentality at all. But that’s what Fox provides them.”
An interview with Jeske follows this introduction. I cannot listen to Donald Alcolytes or Donald himself these days without my stomach churning. How can people not take any of the blatant displays seriously? This is from Ruth Ben-Ghiat at MSNBC. “Denial about Donald Trump is deeper than ever.”
Yet it seems that so many in America are treating this election as politics as usual. Primaries, caucuses and other events proceed, even as the Republican nominee refuses to commit to accepting lawful election results if he is not the victor. And most of the GOP still embraces the false reality that Trump won the 2020 election as well.
This surreal situation reflects both an information deficit and a disinformation surfeit. A March poll of swing-state voters revealed that most respondents were unaware of Trump’s criminal charges, dictator threats, use of fascist language (such as calling people “vermin”), and vows to pardon the “patriots” who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6. More worryingly still, the poll excluded voters who believed Biden stole the 2020 election. Those surveyed, though they are not lost in the Trumpist alternate universe, lack the information to take the threats to our democracy seriously.
And many better-informed Americans don’t take Trump’s proclamations and actions seriously either. Instead, they accuse those who are sounding the alarm at his strongman actions and rhetoric of hyperbole and hysteria.
Certainly, Americans are prone to thinking “it can’t happen here.” Our country has lived on its reputation as a bastion of freedom and democracy, and since we have never had a national dictatorship at home (though the Jim Crow South was a regional authoritarianism), many people don’t recognize autocratic creep as it unfolds. But as Robert Kagan’s stirring essay for The Washington Postput it: “A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending.”
Yet too many are still pretending. President Joe Biden’s age receives far more coverage than Trump’s declarations that if he returns to the White House he will detain and deport millions of people and allow Vladimir Putin’s Russia to “do whatever the hell they want.” Such is his affinity for Russia’s authoritarian that he’d let Moscow attack NATO member states if they pose obstacles to Putin’s imperialist ambitions — a situation that could trigger World War III.
Today, the New York Times published this. “Trump’s Post-Verdict Playbook: Anger and Retribution, Regardless of the Outcome. Former President Donald J. Trump has a history of attacking investigators, blaming President Biden, and seeking vengeance on those who cross him.” This is written by Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman. Think about that.
The verdict in former President Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial remains a mystery, at least for a few more days. Less of a mystery is what Mr. Trump will say and do after it is announced — whatever the outcome might be.
If the past is any guide, even with a full acquittal, Mr. Trump will be angry and vengeful, and will direct attacks against everyone he perceives to be responsible for the Manhattan district attorney’s prosecution. He will continue to level the attacks publicly, at rallies and on Truth Social, and privately encourage his House Republican allies to subpoena his Democratic enemies.
The pattern is firmly established: After Mr. Trump escaped impeachment twice and survived a special counsel investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III into ties between his 2016 campaign and Russia, he immediately went into revenge mode — complaining about the injustices he was forced to endure and urging his allies to investigate the investigators.
“Regardless of the outcome, the playbook is the same,” said Alyssa Farah Griffin, Mr. Trump’s former White House communications director, who began working for him shortly after his first impeachment trial but has since become a sharp critic of her former boss.
Mr. Trump’s team is still determining his plans for the period after the trial’s conclusion, timing that remains at the mercy of the jury.
It is unclear how much the public cares about his trial over allegations that he falsified business records to conceal hush money payments to a porn star during the 2016 election. Mr. Trump’s advisers have been running a private poll tracking public opinion throughout the trial, according to a person briefed on the data, and have not seen a significant downturn in his support, even during some of the more bruising days of testimony. Public polling also suggests a relatively stable race.
But yet, all Republicans persist in the Trump Agenda no matter what level of government. Lindsey Graham said this on Fox News near the end of last year. He was upset that New York might force Chick-fil-A chains to open on Sundays. “”The bottom line is – Conservatives are tolerant, we are kind of get out of your business, you leave me alone, I’ll leave you alone.” Is this the most ridiculous thing he’s ever said? Steven Benen had this to say at the time.
Indeed, therein lies the point. Graham’s description of conservatism certainly sounded quite nice. The government is going to get out of my business and leave people alone? It’s the kind of pitch that’s likely to have broad appeal.
The trouble, of course, is that the description comes with fine print that the South Carolinian neglected to mention. For Republicans, the goal is to keep government out of your business and leave you alone, just so long as you don’t want to terminate a dangerous or unwanted pregnancy. Or provide medical care for a transgender minor. Or read the “wrong” library book. Or teach a class the right considers racially provocative. Or run a business with policies the GOP considers “woke.
For the Republican officials who still oppose marriage equality, conservatism is about ensuring the government leaves you alone, just so long as same-sex couples don’t expect equal treatment under the law.
Watching Graham, I also found myself thinking about Texas’ Kate Cox, who had to leave her home state for medical care because of a law approved by conservative legislators, enforced by a conservative state attorney general, and endorsed by conservative state Supreme Court justices.
Conservatives are committed to getting government “out of your business”? Try again, senator
My home state of Louisiana is going to hell in a handbasket. We even have an Aunt Lydia doing the Do’hvenor’s dirty work. This is a naked attempt to get a database made of whoever has ordered these so-called abortion drugs. A Shreveport legislator led the call for this silly bill. It’s already illegal to give anyone a drug without their consent. This was clearly a way to get names and information of anyone having or ordering the drugs. I’m on a list for having to order phenobarbital for my cat. That’s what having a scheduled drug means to you in terms of government monitoring.
Pressly’s bill would create the crime of coerced criminal abortion by means of fraud, which would carry a prison sentence of five to 10 years hard labor if committed in the first trimester and 10 to 20 years if committed after that. It would also carry the same penalties for an accomplice.
“It’s clear to me that six months in jail isn’t punishment enough for committing this crime,” Pressly said. “Our family doesn’t believe justice was served in my sister’s case.”
Abortion, including the oral medication to induce abortion, is illegal in Louisiana, but the abortion pills are easily obtained through the mail or out of state, Pressly said.
“It’s illegal in Texas, too, but that didn’t stop the crime against my sister,” Pressly said. “This is an important time to put this law in place.”
You may remember when a former Trump Aide also tried to use the pills on a mistress. “Report: Former Trump Aide Accused Of Slipping Lover Abortion Pill.” What’s happened to the idea that guns don’t kill people, people do? Well, what about slipping pills to women?”
Lousiana must be pleased now that children can work and the employer doesn’t have to give them a lunch break. Several red states are doing this. Why? “What’s Driving the Changes to Child Labor Laws? Several red states are moving to weaken child labor laws. Sponsors say they just want kids to be able to work, but critics complain companies are already exploiting vulnerable populations.”
Last week, the Kentucky House passed a bill that would abolish the state’s child labor laws, in effect replacing them with looser federal standards. The bill would also increase the number of hours that 16- and 17-year-olds can work on school days from six to eight. They’d be able to work up to 30 hours per week during the school year, or even more if their parents approve and they maintain at least a 2.0 grade point average.
Several Republican lawmakers joined with Democrats in opposition, including GOP Whip Jason Nemes, but the bill passed easily. “Our current statutes and regulations unnecessarily restrict the number of hours needed to work, often preventing them from seeking an opportunity to help them pay for college, learn new skills and prepare for the future,” said bill sponsor Phillip Pratt, who owns a landscaping and lawn care company.
Kentucky is far from the only state to consider loosening restrictions for child labor in a variety of industries. Since 2021, legislators in 23 states have introduced at least 61 bills with the same goal: changing labor restrictions for minors, whether it’s working more hours or days, or allowing minors to serve alcohol.
Supporters of these measures describe them in terms of opportunity, offering children the chance not only to earn money but develop skills. “In Iowa, we understand there is dignity in work and we pride ourselves on our strong work ethic,” GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds said in signing a looser child labor law last year. “Instilling those values in the next generation and providing opportunities for young adults to earn and save to build a better life should be available.”
But it’s not just young people that proponents of looser child labor laws have in mind. The nation has faced a workforce shortage since the pandemic, with millions of workers leaving due to death, disability or retirement.
“Corporations have a long history of exploiting every tragedy in front of them for their gain, and to the detriment of many for the wealth of the few,” says Jessie Ulibarri, co-executive director of State Innovation Exchange (SiX), a progressive policy group. “It makes sense that corporations are using their significant financial and legislative power to put kids on the front lines of some of the most dangerous jobs. It will help their bottom line.”
Crazy South Dakota Governor Kristin Noems has issued this command from the Gravel Pit. “Pronouns and tribal affiliations are now forbidden in South Dakota public university employee emails.”
A new South Dakota policy to stop the use of gender pronouns by public university faculty and staff in official correspondence is also keeping Native American employees from listing their tribal affiliations in a state with a long and violent history of conflict with tribes.
Two University of South Dakota faculty members, Megan Red Shirt-Shaw and her husband, John Little, have long included their gender pronouns and tribal affiliations in their work email signature blocks. But both received written warnings from the university in March that doing so violated a policy adopted in December by the South Dakota Board of Regents.
“I was told that I had 5 days to remove my tribal affiliation and pronouns,” Little said in an email to The Associated Press. “I believe the exact wording was that I had ‘5 days to correct the behavior.’ If my tribal affiliation and pronouns were not removed after the 5 days, then administrators would meet and make a decision whether I would be suspended (with or without pay) and/or immediately terminated.”
The policy is billed by the board as a simple branding and communications policy. It came only months after Republican Gov. Kristi Noem sent a letter to the regents that railed against “liberal ideologies” on college campuses and called for the board to ban drag shows on campus and “remove all references to preferred pronouns in school materials,” among other things.
All this is going relatively unnoticed by the public. Here’s one from the Washington Post, a fascism red alert from the Orange Snot Blob once again. “Trump told donors he will crush pro-Palestinian protests, deport demonstrators. Trump has waffled on whether the Israel-Gaza war should end. But speaking to wealthy donors behind closed doors, he said that he supports Israel’s right to continue “its war on terror.”
Former president Donald Trump promised to crush pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses, telling a roomful of donors — a group that he joked included “98 percent of my Jewish friends” — that he would expel student demonstrators from the United States, according to participants in the roundtable event with him in New York.
“One thing I do is, any student that protests, I throw them out of the country. You know, there are a lot of foreign students. As soon as they hear that, they’re going to behave,” Trump said on May 14, according to donors at the event.
When one of the donors complained that many of the students and professors protesting on campuses could one day hold positions of power in the United States, Trump called the demonstrators part of a “radical revolution” that he vowed to defeat. He praised the New York Police Department for clearing the campus at Columbia University and said other cities needed to follow suit, saying “it has to be stopped now.”
“Well, if you get me elected, and you should really be doing this, if you get me reelected, we’re going to set that movement back 25 or 30 years,” he said, according to the donors, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to detail a private event.
Keep an eye on what’s going on in your state and other states for these fascist red alarms. We must start our database and ensure our friends, family, and neighbors know what is what. Vote for democracy!
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Thoughtful Thursday Reads on America’s Threatened democracy
Posted: September 7, 2023 Filed under: Afternoon Reads, American Fascists | Tags: American democracy in crisis, RICO charges Georgia, Tear the Fascists Down 7 Comments
William Dexter Bramhall, ‘Big Sky American Landscape
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
It’s really been a messy week for anyone trying to keep up with all the fallout from the Trump Crime Syndicate. The good news is that most of this is focused on the ability of the Justice System to do its job. It’s hard to look at the bigger picture when your down in the weeds watching Trump’s confederates face a judge. Today, I want to look at the bigger picture.
This headline from the AP grabbed my attention. “13 Presidential Libraries Issue Rare Joint Warning About U.S. Democracy. Their statement stopped short of slamming individuals as it called for a recommitment to the country’s bedrock principles.” This is reported by Gary Fields.
Ghost Ranch Landscape, Georgia O’Keeffe, 1936,
I’ve seen all the Presidential Birthplaces and libraries from Eisenhower on back. They’re really interesting if you ever get a chance to see them. For some reason, my family quit going out of the way to see them after Ike’s. They usually just keep on collecting things and doing research on that particular President. Generally, presidential records will be sent to the library from the Library of Congress as required by each library and what it displays. This joint statement is unique. The Libraries have generally been nonpolitical.
Concern for U.S. democracy amid deep national polarization has prompted the entities supporting 13 presidential libraries dating back to Herbert Hoover to call for a recommitment to the country’s bedrock principles, including the rule of law and respecting a diversity of beliefs.
The statement released Thursday, the first time the libraries have joined to make such a public declaration, said Americans have a strong interest in supporting democratic movements and human rights around the world because “free societies elsewhere contribute to our own security and prosperity here at home.”“But that interest,” it said, “is undermined when others see our own house in disarray.”
The joint message from presidential centers, foundations and institutes emphasized the need for compassion, tolerance and pluralism while urging Americans to respect democratic institutions and uphold secure and accessible elections.
The statement noted that “debate and disagreement” are central to democracy but also alluded to the coarsening of dialogue in the public arena during an era when officials and their families are receiving death threats.
“Civility and respect in political discourse, whether in an election year or otherwise, are essential,” it said.
Most of the living former presidents have been sparing in giving their public opinions about the state of the nation as polls show that large swaths of Republicans still believe the lies perpetuated by former President Donald Trump and his allies that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.
William Henry Bartlett (1809-1854) New York from Weehawken, New Jersey 1846
The Carnegie Endowment for Peace has this information analyzed in the research paper, “Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says. It’s written by Rachel Kleinfeld.
The United States feels roiled by polarization, and the philanthropic world is seized with debates about what to do. Some scholars claim that Americans are so polarized they are on the brink of civil war. Other polls suggest that voters agree on plenty of policies and that polarization is an illusion. Some philanthropists call for pluralism and civility, while others lean into activism, believing polarization is a byproduct of change toward a more just world. So, is the United States polarized or not? If it is, what is causing the polarization and what are its consequences? Should polarization be solved or tolerated?
This paper is intended to answer these questions. It opens with five facts about polarization in the United States today and what those imply for possible interventions. A literature review follows, organized chronologically to explain the scholarly shift from thinking of polarization as an ideological, policy-based phenomenon to an issue of emotion, as well as the emerging understanding of polarization as both a social phenomenon and a political strategy.
This section caught my eye.
American politicians are highly ideologically polarized. In other words, they believe in and vote for different sets of policies, with little overlap. This trend has grown in a steady, unpunctuated manner for decades.5 One reason that the most highly politically engaged Americans may misunderstand the other side is that they correctly estimate the extreme ideological polarization among politicians.
It is easy to assume that polarized voters are selecting more polarized leaders—and that theory may hold true for recent primary elections. However, that is not the main story. The process begins long before voters get a choice: more ideologically extreme politicians have been running for office since the 1980s.6 Among the pool of people wishing to run, party chairs more often select and support extreme candidates, especially on the right. (In 2013, Republican party chairs at the county level selected ten extreme candidates for every one moderate; the ratio was two to one for Democrats.) The increase in “safe” seats, in which one party is overwhelmingly likely to win, explains candidate and party preferences for more polarizing platforms, but it does not explain the depth of the Republican preference.7
Parties and candidates clearly believe that more polarizing candidates are more likely to win elections. This may be a self-fulfilling prophecy: voters exposed to more polarizing rhetoric from leaders who share their partisan identity are likely to alter their preferences based on their understanding of what their group believes and has normalized—particularly among primary voters whose identity is more tied to their party. 8 However, only about 20 percent of each party votes in primaries, and 41 percent of Americans are independents who may not have strong party identity and are barred from voting in some states’ primaries.9 That leaves the majority of voters with a relatively low ability to pick a less polarizing candidate of their party. Philanthropists and prodemocracy organizations attempting to reduce polarization often assume that the problem they must grapple with is polarized voters, but their interventions should also take into account the fact that that some of the ideological extremism and polarization since the 1980s is candidate- and party-driven. While at this point, candidates and parties may be responding to polarized primary voters, candidates and parties have been driving the polarization, and not all voters are ideologically polarized.
The disparity between where leaders are ideologically and where their voters are precludes legislative policy agreement on many issues. Average voters are not able to assert their (often weak) policy preferences because they do not have an effective way to vote out representatives who do not accurately represent their constituents’ views, particularly on the right where party chairs are likely to substitute one extreme candidate for another.
Thomas Moran, American Landscape Pennsylvania c. 1868
Think about that last sentence. Connecticut Public Radio analyzes a Quinnipiac poll. “Is American democracy in crisis?” The discussion and analysis is by Frankie Graziano and Meg Dalton. It’s about a 50-minute listen.
Eighty-three percent of American voters are either very worried or at least somewhat worried about the functioning of our democracy.So what does this recent Quinnipiac poll tell us? Why are people losing faith in our democracy?
This hour, we’re asking some big questions about the future of democracy in the U.S., covering everything from political violence to voter suppression.
The Poll is quite interesting and was taken in August. “Majority Of Americans Say Trump Should Be Prosecuted On Federal Criminal Charges Linked To 2020 Election, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; DeSantis Slips, Trump Widens Lead In GOP Primary.” This is the base poll of opinions prior to the court cases now getting closer to being held. Today, Mark Meadows is in court for his Contempt of Congress Charge. It is likely that the first of the Fulton County, Georgia, defendants’ trials kick off in October
In the wake of a federal indictment accusing former President Donald Trump of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, Americans 54 – 42 percent think Trump should be prosecuted on criminal charges, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University national poll released today. Democrats (95 – 5 percent) and independents (57 – 37 percent) think the former president should be prosecuted on criminal charges for allegedly attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, while Republicans (85 – 12 percent) think Trump should not be prosecuted. The poll was conducted from August 10th through August 14th.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) think the federal criminal charges accusing former President Trump of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election are either very serious (52 percent) or somewhat serious (12 percent), while roughly one-third (32 percent) think they are either not too serious (11 percent) or not serious at all (21 percent).
There are wide gaps by political party.
Roughly 9 in 10 Democrats (89 percent) and 51 percent of independents think the federal criminal charges are very serious. Among Republicans, 18 percent think the federal criminal charges are very serious, while 48 percent say they are not serious at all.
Jennifer L. Mohr, Landscape Painting 4
Motions in the Georgia RICO case have started. This resulted in one decision already where the Judge did not sever two of the codefendents. While this case is vital to ensuring justice to us for the election-stealing attempts by Trump and his supporters, what I’d like to look at today is a RICO case filed by a Georgia Republican Attorney General that threatens the very heart of our right to free speech and assembly. This appears to be a tit-for-tat on a certain level. It’s certainly catching up protestors asserting their rights with activists who are actually using illegal actions to stop this project.
This is from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which I appear to be reading more than my own home city paper these days. “More than 60 Atlanta training center activists named in RICO Indictment.” Constitutional Rights Activists and Lawyers are alarmed
More than five dozen activists were indicted on RICO charges last week over the ongoing efforts to halt construction of the city of Atlanta’s planned public safety training center in DeKalb County.
The sweeping indictment, filed in Fulton County, is being prosecuted by the Georgia Attorney General’s Office.
A total of 61 protesters have been charged with violating the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act. Some face additional charges of domestic terrorism, arson and money laundering. Most are not from Georgia.
“Our job is to enforce the laws of this state. As you can tell in this indictment, this is about violent acts plain and simple,” Attorney General Chris Carr said in a press conference announcing the indictment.
The indictment mainly focuses on the Defend the Atlanta Forest group, describing it as an Atlanta-based organization that prosecutors say is an “anti-government, anti-police, and anti-corporate extremist organization.”
More than five dozen activists were indicted on RICO charges last week over the ongoing efforts to halt construction of the city of Atlanta’s planned public safety training center in DeKalb County.
The sweeping indictment, filed in Fulton County, is being prosecuted by the Georgia Attorney General’s Office.
Wayne Thiebaud, Green River Lands, 1998,
CNN has more analysis. “61 ‘Cop City’ protesters indicted on RICO charges. Opponents question the timeline and motivation.”
Debate over the public safety training facility has been brewing for years. The Atlanta Police Foundation, which is helping to fund the project, has said it’s needed to help boost morale and recruitment among police and firefighter ranks now using substandard or borrowed facilities. Protesters have decried its potential environmental impact and possible role in the further militarization of police, with some camping out at the site for months and clashing with police.
The Vote to Stop Cop City Coalition, which opposes the project, denounced the RICO indictment and questioned the motivation behind it.
“These charges, like the previous repressive prosecutions by the State of Georgia, seek to intimidate protestors, legal observers, and bail funds alike, and send the chilling message that any dissent to Cop City will be punished with the full power and violence of the government,” the coalition said.
“Further, the documents use the day George Floyd was murdered as the date the alleged criminal acts began. This is months before anyone was even aware of Cop City, and is a clear assault on the broader movement for racial justice and equity,” the group said.
The 109-page indictment indeed alleges criminal activity related to the training center site happened “on or between May 25, 2020 and August 25, 2023.” Floyd was killed May 25, 2020, by a Minneapolis police officer – tipping off a nationwide reckoning over police use of force against people of color – but the “Cop City” training center site wasn’t announced until 2021.
“Carr’s actions are a part of a retaliatory pattern of prosecutions against organizers nationwide that attack the right to protest and freedom of speech,” the Vote to Stop Cop City Coalition said.
Sunlight and Shadow: The Newbury Marshes (c. 1875) by Martin Johnson Heade
DA Willis has been seeking anonymity for the jurors because of ongoing threats from MAGA extremists. Another disturbing Republican extremist is trying to interfere with the Rico Charges against Trump and his Co-conspirators. “Willis blasts congressman’s ‘interference’ in Fulton Trump probe.” This is from the ACJ.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis Thursday blasted a congressman who has pledged to investigate her handling of an indictment of former President Donald Trump and others.
U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, recently demanded records of Willis’ communication with Justice Department officials who have also indicted Trump for his role in an alleged scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Jordan suggested Willis is attempting to interfere with the 2024 election – Trump is the front-runner for the Republican nomination. And he said her investigation could infringe on the free speech and other rights of Trump and other defendants.
On Thursday, Willis fired back, saying Jordan’s Aug. 24 letter included “inaccurate information and misleading statements.” She accused Jodan of improperly interfering with a state criminal case and attempting to punish her for personal political gain.
“Its obvious purpose is to obstruct a Georgia criminal proceeding and to advance outrageous misrepresentations,” Willis wrote of Jordan letter. “As I make clear below, there is no justification in the Constitution for Congress to interfere with a state criminal matter, as you attempt to do.”
Which case is about Free Speech? Which case is about tampering with witnesses and dirtying jury pools?
Then there is this.
- Pennsylvania school district requires social studies classes to incorporate right-wing propaganda
- Miami school board again shuts down LGBTQ month recognition
- The Rise of Legislative Anti-Democracy
- State Legislatures Are Torching Democracy
- The Anti-Voting Bills Republicans Enacted This Legislative Season
It’s an easy GOOGLE search to find out why our democratic republic is threatened. Vote! Volunteer! Use your networks to GOTV!
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
dakinikat
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Recent Comments