Tag Archives: Trump

Trump and Hitler’s Generals

Posted on by
Reply

“What the German people regret, you soon find, is not that they made this war, but that they lost it. If only Hitler had listened to his generals during the Russian campaign . . .”

–William L. Shirer, Berlin, Nov. 3, 1945. End of a Berlin Diary (Knopf, 1947), p 131

You can’t say much for their morals, but even postwar Germans did not admire Hitler’s generals for their subservience to the Fuehrer, according to William L. Shirer, author of the landmark Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Rather than harboring Donald Trump’s reported view of “the kind of generals that Hitler had,” in hindsight, they felt that Adolf Schicklgruber had led his country to ruin in refusing to be guided by his generals.

Trump has denied making the statement about Hitler’s generals. However, the subtext stands intact: there is little doubt that in military matters a President Trump would be perfectly willing to replace ability with malleability. After all, it’s what he has tried to do with the U.S. economy and the U.S. justice system. And while I eschew hysterical accusations of fascism and careless allusions to Hitler—especially from people silent on the reprisals in Gaza–the subtext assessment of Hitler’s generals is valid. As Shirer summed up,

“In other words, the German military went along. Not a single general, until it was too late, had the guts really to stand up to Hitler.”

End of a Berlin Diary, p 312

As said, Trump has denied making the statement. It will be interesting to see whether the two reported hearers go public.

Meanwhile, you can see why he has denied it. For one thing, blusterers usually retreat from pushback. For another, it’s a classic Sillyman comment. Wishing for the kind of generals Hitler had—btw, Germany lost the war—is a little like saying, “We need more officers like General Custer.” Or “I need the kind of generals that Jeff Davis had.” (The South lost the Civil War.) Probably Trump’s denial will pass muster with his firmest supporters. To do them justice, they can point to all the times Trump was wrongly dismissed out of hand—the sneering at his “germophobia” before the pandemic; the smugly wrong predictions that no vaccine could be produced for years; the supposed impossibility of his winning in 2016; etc.

Civilian control of the military is essential in a democracy. The principle is bedrock in the U.S. Constitution. But honest counsel is also essential. Historians, philosophers, and poets have concurred for millennia that tyrants do not get good counsel. Hence, a gasbag and a bully is not a genuine strong man.

He can still do genuine harm. The gasbag now posturing as a shadow president and soliciting foreign dictators is facilitating the slaughter in Gaza. Stepping outside the Constitution and beyond the water’s edge, he is basically giving Netanyahu carte blanche.

Insurrection Ineligible

Posted on by
Reply

<>

Under the United States’ federal form of government, elections are administered by the states. Why are state constitutions being left out of the picture?

The Colorado Supreme Court has put state courts front and center for 2024, ruling Donald J. Trump ineligible for the ballot in Colorado, pending appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

January 6, 2021

As everyone not living under a rock knows, at issue is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. (July 9, 1868)

Constitution of the United States

Shortened to pertinence, the section reads,

“No person shall […] hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, […] who, having previously taken an oath […] as an officer of the United States […] to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same[.]”

The section seems clear to a non-lawyer but is being characterized as vague or not spelled out. Setting aside definition of “officer of the United States” for now, the key term is insurrection.

The U.S. Constitution itself refers to insurrection only briefly—very, very briefly—in enumerating powers of Congress: in Section 8, Congress can call forth the militia to “suppress insurrections.”

No definition is given for “insurrections,” suggesting that none was considered necessary; and suppressing insurrections is a power of Congress, not only of the Commander in Chief. (Sadly, the D.C. Code states that local authorities in Washington, D.C., can call upon the Commander in Chief for help in suppressing riots. An update may be needed.)

The brief statement on insurrection in the U.S. Constitution is reinforced by state constitutions. This is not a federal-government-versus-state-government issue.

For the record, the state constitutions of Colorado, Iowa, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona all refer to “insurrection,” not favorably but as a self-evident ill to address. So do the constitutions of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

I have not gotten to the other 29 state constitutions yet, but so far an unshakeable pattern has emerged. To summarize, in the states named, without exception,

  1. The governor has power to suppress insurrection.

  1. The state can take on public debt and/or appropriate funds against insurrection.

In regard to public debt and insurrection, North Carolina goes farther.

Section 3 (4): “Certain debts barred.  The General Assembly shall never assume or pay any debt or obligation, express or implied, incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

Section 4 (4): “Certain debts barred.  No county, city or town, or other unit of local government shall assume or pay any debt or the interest thereon contracted directly or indirectly in aid or support of rebellion or insurrection against the United States.”

Variations of language do not disrupt the patterns, the state powers to address insurrection. For example, the governor can call out the state militia and put down insurrection even where, as in South Carolina, Arkansas, or Pennsylvania, the same section does not explicitly designate him “commander in chief.”

Also, for whatever historical reasons, the state constitutions of Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Maryland, and Arizona do not contain the word “rebellion,” often in other states associated with “insurrection” or “invasion.” But as said, they all address “insurrection.”

There are two more overall patterns to mention here.

  1. Many state constitutions—though not all—say that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in connection with insurrection, rebellion, or invasion.  The state constitutions of Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Arizona, and Maryland do not have this provision but say flatly that habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

  1. No state constitution uses the word “convicted” in connection with insurrection, rebellion, or invasion. (If an example turns up, I will include it in a later post.)

With all due deference to Rep. Phillips, none of the references to insurrection or rebellion in any state constitution say anything about being convicted. When the word “convicted” is used about public officials, it mainly refers to offenses like bribery and embezzlement.

Obviously, some state constitutions were written or rewritten after the Civil War, with the Confederacy in mind, although provisions against insurrection pre-dated the Civil War in older states. There was little need for conviction on Civil War actions, when the actions were highly public; the identities of Jefferson Davis et al. were widely known.

In this respect, Donald J. Trump’s actions are indeed analogous to the highly public actions of southeastern states after Fort Sumter. Trump’s actions are always highly public—televised, videorecorded, ongoing even after January 6; trumpeted in rallies, on Trump’s own social media, and at Mar-a-Lago; used flamboyantly in fundraising appeals coast to coast.

Speaking of being convicted, or not, on the related topic of impeachment, the state constitutions create another unshakeable pattern:

  1. As in the U.S. Constitution, punishment in impeachment extends only to removal from office and disqualification from serving in public office in the future. Neither the U.S. Congress nor state legislatures can jail a convicted individual, and rightly not. BUT, also as in the U.S. Constitution, the outcome of an impeachment trial does not protect an official from prosecution or from other actions of the law after office. This provision is stated clearly in the constitutions of Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Iowa.

Trump’s weakest ground is his weird insistence that he is immune to prosecution because he is out of office but was once in office.

The wording of the Arizona state constitution is luminously clear on this point (Part 2.2):

“The party, whether convicted or acquitted, shall be liable to trial and punishment according to law.”

UPDATE 12/22/23. Add the Michigan state constitution to the list of documents upholding the governor’s power to deal with “insurrection.” The Detroit News today reported that Donald Trump was caught on tape pressuring state election officials in Michigan to avoid certifying the 2020 presidential vote in that state. Also on the call was Ronna McDaniel, Chair of the Republication National Committee. The telephone conversation as reported would induce them to violate their oath of faithfully performing the duties of their office, but Trump backed up McDaniel in assuring them that they would have legal protection. McDaniel is recorded saying, “We will get you attorneys,” and Trump, “We’ll take care of that.”

The Way the Story Should Have Gone

Posted on by
Reply

On February 7, according to this morning’s* Washington Post, President Donald Trump told reporter Bob Woodward that the corona virus was “deadly stuff,” describing it as very dangerous and more.

What should have happened is easy to say, up to a point. Woodward should have hotfooted the news to the front page of the Post. It should have appeared on February 8* at latest. Congress would have been informed while still in town and able to gather.

It's a mess': Coronavirus pandemic exposes New York City's vulnerabilities - ABC News

States with large cities could theoretically have been alerted. States, counties, and towns could conceivably have looked to their hospitals, EMT, emergency supplies.

Admittedly thinking ahead is not everybody’s strong point. Some people don’t even try to do it. (Woodward seems to have been looking ahead to his next book, the president to the next election.) And not much information had developed at that point.

But shortness of information has not deterred the hysterics out to do nothing but attack Trump, producing nothing that would benefit the public, on any other issue. It is virtually incontestable that some of the regular leakers in the administration and around the White House could have, and would have, gone to news outlets with a hot new set of leaks on an Asian epidemic about to hit this country.

The public would have been informed, at least partly, while still mobile, while still employed, still getting a paycheck, children at school, still alive and well, the stores still stocked—in other words, when ordinary citizens had a chance to take steps and prepare.

Maybe even some of the nation’s nursing homes would have benefited from the heads-up.

While my brother was still alive.

Sorry, people, but Mr. Woodward’s version of reporting is not reporting. It’s not-reporting. It is a moral disgrace.

And now the Washington Post is running the story that didn’t run—free media for Woodward’s book. So that’s what matters; a star reporter and millionaire author will get another windfall. Woodward will return to the luminous ranks of John Bolton, Michael Cohen, and the other literati who rake in big bucks from publishers by going TrumpTrumpTrump, catering to the mob-lust of underqualified people in publishing and outside it who seem to have centered their thinking if not their lives around a hysterical gestalt that every human being on earth has abandoned and rejected President Trump. I consider the behavior sick, and I am not a Trump voter.

Since many people consider the news media the face of the Democratic Party, the sick big-media behavior on the star-reporter model may also cost Democrats the election.

 

*I am a WaPo subscriber in P. G. Stories in the print edition/s often come a day or more behind the online edition, so I just saw this detail today. (I didn’t hear it reported on cable or networks.) No, I don’t return to my PC—where I usually start the day writing–to catch breaking news in the small hours.

*Give or take a day, in print editions.

 

Who sent the bombs to Obama officials?

Posted on by
Reply

I am very curious to know who mailed the homemade-looking manila-envelope bombs to President Obama and the others. It is too soon for an affirmative theory. CNN and MSNBC instantaneously call President Trump the common denominator, also emphasize that the bomb addressed to Brennan was sent to CNN.

I hope all the bombs have been recovered. So far, there are two (actual) common denominators, besides the person who sent the bombs.

Bombs found so far were addressed to former President Barack Obama; his Attorney General, Eric Holder; his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton; and his CIA head, John Brennan. The others were addressed to California Democratic congress member Maxine Waters, an Obama supporter; and major Democratic donor George Soros, an Obama supporter.

[UPDATE Thursday: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/25/robert-de-niros-nyc-restaurant-reportedly-receives-suspected-mail-bomb-similar-to-those-sent-to-top-democrats-and-cnn.html 

  • Explosive devices similar to ones sent to prominent Democrats earlier this week was sent to actor Robert De Niro and former vice president Joe Biden, according to media reports.

So the list of Obama officials is now further filled in with President Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden. De Niro famously stumped for Obama.]

Image result for De Niro mail

The other common denominator is Florida congress member Debbie Wasserman Schultz. All the packages have her as their bogus return address.

How the Democrats keep losing. 2017, part 4.

Posted on by
Reply

How the Democrats keep losing. The most recent addition to this exhibition–probably not the last–is now installed. Georgia’s 6th congressional district went for Republican Karen Handel. In no way was this a surprise, as far as I am concerned. See previous posts on this topic here and here. (Yes, it is time for the I-told-you-so’s.)

The final outcome wasn’t all that much of a squeaker, either. Unofficial results from the Georgia Secretary of State’s website give Handel 51.87 percent of the vote to Jon Ossoff’s 48.13 percent, a margin of almost four points. The end was apparent by 10 p.m. on election night. Handel won by almost 10,000 votes–a not inconsiderable number in a congressional district.

For further perspective, compare the outcome to that of South Carolina’s special election, the same night. Very similar: the Republican candidate, Ralph Norman, won, and by about the same margin. Unofficial results from the South Carolina State Election Commission give Norman 51.10 percent of the vote to 47.88 percent for Democrat Archie Parnell. If you do the arithmetic with close attention, Parnell did slightly better percentage-wise than Ossoff.

Parnell

In other words, the Democratic candidate in South Carolina did slightly better, though still losing, than the Democratic candidate in Georgia. Is this in spite of the attention paid to ‘flipping’ Georgia during the 2016 election cycle–or because of it?

My working hypothesis is the latter.

More national attention means more money, and more money went to Georgia, as everyone on Earth knows. Googling the phrase ‘the most expensive House race in U.S. history’ turns up 6.5 million results. The non-profit, non-partisan OpenSecrets.org has posted a substantial run-down on dollar amounts as of June 19. As of the day before the special election, at least $56 million had been spent. At that time, the NRCC had spent somewhat more than the DCCC, both pouring millions into the race. The NRCC was playing some catch-up ball; Ossoff was the beneficiary of highly-touted donations and campaign appearances by Hollywood celebrities and others from before the April 18th round of the special election.

But what looks like a national bandwagon of bi-coastal celebrities is not the same as a local landslide. In fact, it is not the same as a local win. It does not translate into a local win.

Even money coming in is not everything.

Compare the money spent on the South Carolina special election to that spent on the Georgia special election. As Open Secrets notes in the same article, by May 31 a grand total of $2.06 million had been raised by Norman and Parnell for the South Carolina race, partly in loans to their campaigns by the candidates themselves. The South Carolina total thus comes to about three percent of the Georgia total.

So–same margin of loss for the Democrats, at three percent of the price? And that’s before the final numbers are all in. There is no reason to expect that the cost ratio of the two elections will narrow after final FEC reports.

Leaning over backward here, I have to mention that voter turnout was better in Georgia, significantly better. South Carolina reports 18.25 percent turnout in its special; Georgia reports turnout of 57.97 percent. Any analyst would say that topping 50 percent in an off-year election, or in a midterm election, let alone a special, is outstanding.

However–more money coming in, with more national attention, also means more outsiderism. Jon Ossoff may not have been a total carpetbagger, but he was no home-grown favorite son, either. His negatives were slight but telling–living outside the district, for example–and not palliated by his fudging the distance he lived away. More importantly, Ossoff’s candidacy was not the organic product of community action, or activism. He had a successful career in media and the potential to attract big money. Thus Ossoff was the hand-picked choice of Dems who thought They Were the Ones Who Knew the Score, in Georgia and more outside it.

Thus he tacitly reinforced the perception of rigged elections. Republicans kept tying him to ‘Nancy Pelosi’, but the real damage is that Ossoff’s candidacy was a pale reflection of Hillary Clinton’s. No choice. That’s the Democratic message: We’re the one for you, and when we say ‘one’, we mean it.

I have no  strong hope that writers for either Daily Kos or Rachel Maddow will ever perceive the gut unpopularity of this strategy.

We’re already seeing the fall-out from the special elections in ‘progressive’ public discourse. Short form:

Argument over ‘moving to the left’ misses the point in a big way.

Argument over ‘party leadership’ also probably misses the point.

Candidates win in their own districts. Local talent has to run. Popular, well-liked local talent has to run. And genuine liking comes from having worked for, on behalf of, the people you live among. The hysterical careerists who seem to dominate the Democratic Party nationally have yet to pick up on this.

As to making elections a ‘Referendum on Trump’? Losing strategy. I said so before. Going TrumpTrumpTrump as Hillary Clinton did generates the same outcome Clinton got, or created. Furthermore, making congressional elections a ‘referendum on Trump’ ignores the concerns of the congressional district. It is also basically a form of telling people how stupid they are. (Who are you to have your own opinions or preferences?) Telling people how stupid they are/were may give self-anointed insiders a feeling of power for a few minutes, but it is both mean and a loser. That makes it 0 for 2 in my book.

Meanwhile, the hysteria poured into the Georgia Special sucked away resources that could have gone into home foreclosures, or inmate abuse, or immigrants preyed upon by other immigrants, or the backlog of unprocessed rape kits. If the Democrats would work on these and other issues at home, and would do genuine work, they would be seen doing so.

Not that winning is everything. But losing isn’t anything.

Told you so.

 

 

John Doar of Watergate

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s history lesson. The Watergate investigation was headed by Republican John Doar, an alumnus of Princeton and of Berkeley Law. Before serving as chief investigator in Watergate, Doar had served as an Army Air Force pilot in World War II and as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the sixties. His duties as Assistant AG included protecting James Meredith at the University of Mississippi.*

John Doar (left)

President Obama awarded Doar the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2012 (an award overshadowed by Bob Dylan’s).

Below is a key reminder about Doar’s character and performance. Quoted from the wonderful Jimmy Breslin’s How the Good Guys Finally Won:

The second occurrence, the dangerous one, first began to take form months before. It grew out of the nature of the political business. On one hand there was John Doar, unelected, with working methods that were as strict and severe as they were successful. Security is a rather simple word to Doar: it means you say nothing to anybody. As politicians are essentially elected washerwomen, information often their only visible means of support, this secrecy made some members [of the Judiciary Committee] nervous.

I was reminded of Doar in reading that James Quarles, reportedly on the Mueller team investigating matters under the Trump administration, was a member of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force.

Does Robert Mueller remind anyone of Doar?

As a newspaper reader and one of the Washington Post’s last six print subscribers, I have to admit that I myself often enjoy reading about leaks. However, some enlightened skepticism about them is essential–and often a more interesting story. Take for example the phenomenon, throughout the George W. Bush years, of treating as leaks what were actually plants–items planted in media outlets, usually to harm some individual in government no longer in the charmed circle.

A remarkable number of leaks have come from the Mueller team investigating Russia and the 2016 election in the last couple of days. The sources are unnamed at this point, though of course I have my own guesses. One logical claim is unassailable and clear: either Mueller can control the leaks from what purports to be an investigation into serious matters, or he cannot. If he cannot, he is not in control of his team. If he can, he is basically generating the leaks.

Regardless of the benefit of leakers to individual journalists and to individual media outlets, it would be nice to see more informed scrutiny in the news media.

I would also like to see my hunches confirmed as to identity; if someone else won’t provide, I’ll have to do it myself. For analogy and another literary reference, see The Little Red Hen.

*Many people don’t seem to know that the U Mississippi nickname ‘Ole Miss’ is cant for the slave name for the mistress on an antebellum plantation. Funny to hear it used so fondly, since no one would apply ‘Ole Massa’ to anything, at least with affection.

[Update]

Just after posting above, I saw Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s statement on anonymous allegations. From DOJ:

Statement by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Anonymous Allegations

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein today issued the following statement:

“Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous ‘officials,’ particularly when they do not identify the country – let alone the branch or agency of government – with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated. Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations. The Department of Justice has a long-established policy to neither confirm nor deny such allegations.”

 

 

How the Democrats Keep Losing. 2017, Part 1. Georgia special, 6th District, April 18.

Posted on by
Reply

Right now the 2017 race getting most attention is the Georgia 6th Congressional District special election, coming up on April 18. Georgia went red in 2016, as did Georgia’s 6th Congressional District; see below. But a ‘competitive’ special election in the 6th is being ballyhooed by commentators as well as by the national Democratic Party and by some outside groups.

The best over-all coverage so far comes from Ballotpedia:

“This race is one Ballotpedia is watching closely. Although it is normally a safe Republican district, polling and spending in the district indicates a competitive race. The election will replace Tom Price (R), who was confirmed as U.S. secretary of health and human services. Prior to his cabinet appointment, Price represented the 6th District from 2004 to 2017. Two interesting angles have emerged in recent weeks: 1) which Republican candidate might emerge from the crop of 11 to advance to the runoff; 2) Will there even be a runoff, if Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff is able to coalesce enough support to break 50 percent in the primary?”

Actually the April 18th special is not a primary, as Ballotpedia points out elsewhere. Rather, it is a general election with declared candidates from four parties. If no candidate breaks 50 percent, the two top candidates advance to the June 20 runoff.

Dan Moody, GOP candidate in Georgia's 6th

Dan Moody, GOP candidate in Georgia’s 6th

Some breathless coverage has evolved, if that’s the word, from the arithmetic of the field: the GOP has eleven declared candidates, while the Democrats have a mere five–frontrunner Jon Ossoff, physician Rebecca Quigg, Navy veteran and college professor Richard Keatley, former state senator Ron Slotin, and sales manager Ragin Edwards, the one woman of color in the race. The smart money is backing Ossoff to take a runoff spot.

That in itself looks like a plausible projection at this point. Let’s say that Ossoff gets into the two-person runoff. Then what?

Here’s where the coverage and the political attention get interesting, or twisted.

National Democrats have invested heavily in Ossoff:

PICKING A HORSE – “House Democrats invest in Georgia, wait on Montana,” by Campaign Pro’s Elena Schneider: “Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock weathered Trump’s 20-point wave in Montana. Republican Greg Gianforte, who lost to Bullock in 2016, is the front-runner for the open House seat, after infuriating some in his own party for failing to appeal beyond his conservative base . But national Democrats can’t stop talking about Georgia. The DCCC is sending money to hire nine on-the-ground staffers to help Democrats in Georgia’s 6th District. Jon Ossoff, the 30-year-old front-runner to carry Democratic hopes into a special election runoff, has already raised a whopping $1.85 million to replace Republican Rep. Tom Price in the traditionally red seat. The DNC is following suit, with interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile saying Thursday that the committee will make investments there.”

So have Georgia’s state Democrats. So have some outside groups such as the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund and End Citizens United, which as of March 30, Politico reports, had raised half a million for Ossoff. Enthusiastic emails ask for donations to the Ossoff campaign round the clock, at every moment that can be called a juncture or a “deadline”. (Alan Grayson’s emails, far and away the best-written, give some good commentary on the asks.)

And all of this is based on–what? On Donald Trump’s relatively slim win over Hillary Clinton in Georgia’s 6th. According to Daily Kos, the presidential vote in the 6th was 46.8 percent for Clinton, 48.3 percent for Trump. The narrowness of the win in a district in a state Trump carried by five points has gotten a lot of attention.

Here’s where the yes-but comes in. Georgia also cast votes for Libertarian Gary Johnson in 2016. The Kos breakdown of congressional districts did not tally non-major parties. The 2016 Libertarian vote is typically not factored in. It goes unmentioned in the special-Georgia-6th emails drumming up support and contributions for Ossoff. It also goes unmentioned in most commentary.

However, as pro-Libertarians have noted, in the Sixth District, it amounted to five percent:

“The Gary Johnson-William Weld Libertarian ticket’s solid 5 percent tally in Georgia’s 6th District over-performed its statewide and national percentage, stretching past 7 percent in some precincts.”

So, adding up, Georgia’s 6th gave 53.3 percent of its presidential vote to Republican or right-leaning candidates in 2016. Write-in votes in the entire state came to one half of one percent; thus awarding every write-in vote in the 6th to a Democrat or left-leaning candidate, hypothetically and impossibly, still leaves the margin of victory at 53.3 percent to 46.8 percent. Not by any definition was this a close race, or ‘competitive’, let alone a squeaker.

It could also be suggested that some votes went Libertarian not only in reaction against Trump–as ceaselessly touted in  media coverage and wishful partisan discussion–but in a confidence that Trump would win anyway. If so, the confidence turned out to be justified. In short, Hillary Clinton lost the 6th by 6.5 percent.

Meanwhile, GOP House Representative Tom Price was cruising to reelection in the 6th, with more than 61 percent of the vote to Democrat Tom Stooksbury’s 38-plus percent.

The special election on the 18th, be it noted, is for U.S. House.

This run-down has not been clarified in any of the numerous emails that urge Sanders voters and others to donate to Ossoff.

So, where are the Democrats at in Georgia’s 6th?

Let’s start with gender, this being the year we hear that more women than ever are activated, marching, energized–the buzzy term–and running for office. In Georgia’s 6th, the eighteen or nineteen declared candidates include four women–Quigg and Edwards for the Democrats, Karen Handel and Amy Kremer for the GOP. So far, Ossoff has dominated in coverage on the Democratic side, gender be damned; Handel leads in polls on the Republican side. Handel, Judson Hill and Bob Gray are reportedly the robust GOP contenders for money and endorsements. Looks like gender is a non-starter, at least for the Democrats. So much for women.

Ditto in the coverage, at least as regards Georgia 6. Politico, for example, has been boosting Ossoff since the beginning of the year. Its most recent article on the special election (yesterday) has him the only one in the picture. Actors Alyssa Milano and Christopher Gorham’s stumping for Ossoff has gotten warm mention. Of the four other Democratic candidates, three have not been named on Politico‘s large web site. (Try the search.) The name of Rebecca Quigg, who came out strongly for the Affordable Care Act as a physician, is not findable on Politico.com at this writing. Anywhere. Nor is Edwards’.

Not that this is all gender, you understand. Keatley’s name is also not found on Politico, and Ron Slotin has gotten one mention there this year.

Mistakes 2.0. Democrats still cruisin for a bruisin

There are a few troublesome elements here.

Going beyond the scope of this article, I continue to observe that cable coverage is often the face of ‘the media’ to the general public; that cable coverage tends to dovetail into political insider-ism; and that both too often meld in public perception with ‘the Democrats’–especially when the Democratic Party aggressively plays along with all of the above. Nothing could be more discouraging.

Look what’s going on in Georgia. You have 1) a race where Democrats are in the minority, past and present, but where the Democratic Party is focusing attention and resources; 2) in which, still, the Democrats are trying to coalesce around one candidate, boosted by party insiders and the party apparatus; 3) a large part of the effort is to make the one candidate seem inevitable and unstoppable; 4) with eager cooperation from media outlets starving out other Democratic contenders rather than reporting on them; 5) all trying to motivate voters largely by Trump-bashing the opposition; 6) all while over-optimistically estimating probabilities of a win; and 7) neglecting or ignoring more viable districts and under-served populations in the West and on the Gulf Coast. Meanwhile, tireless and round-the-clock pleas for money are pumped out with party support. On top of everything else, the special takes place just after April the 15th, except that there is an extension for Income Tax Day this year–meaning it coincides with the Georgia 6th special election.

For the moment, the math isn’t there. Did Dems learn anything from 2016?

Perhaps there will be some benefit to having a Democratic candidate in the Georgia 6 run-off, assuming that happens. But not unless the Democrats change for the better once the runoff spot is in the bag, if it is. That means positives on health care, education, and infrastructure. Going TrumpTrumpTrump as Clinton did will only corroborate a suspicion that the party has nothing to offer.

Remember, if the lost GOP voters had viewed Trump half as hysterically as some commentators do, they would have held their noses and voted for Clinton.

 

“Russia”? Really?

Posted on by
2

Democrats and Republicans

Is the national Democratic Party trying to burn into extinction any hope that it is the party of the people? A couple of weeks ago, the word “recount” was on the lips of every mouthpiece. A week or so ago (and before and since), proposals to abolish the Electoral College were bruited. Now the drive is on to investigate Russia.

Margie Burns artwork

Modern Russian art — is a stage set really  nonobjective?

A ‘bipartisan’ alliance of the most comprehensively bought-and-sold members of Congress–led by Mitch “Big Tobacco” McConnell for the Repubs, Chuck “Big Banks” Schumer for Dems–has as of this writing signed on to allegations that Russia backed Julian Assange. Not surprisingly, entrenched Republican Senate hacks have joined ditto Dems in what is being hailed in some media outlets as an instance of bipartisan cooperation. (What these insiders chiefly have in common is that they were up-ended by Trump’s victory. This point is not being emphasized in the news media.)

Basically the claim seems to be that a) Russia hacked into U.S. Democrats’ emails, and that b) it did so to throw the election to Donald Trump. This is not a Q.E.D. It is preposterous. For one thing, the emails came from leaks, not from ‘hacking’. (Most in the McConnell-Schumer cohort would not likely know the difference.)

cropped-DSCN0289-1.jpg

(The photograph is just for fun. Merry Christmas.)

So why would any Democratic office holder, let alone one of any prominence, sign on to this Cold-War-redux saturnalia? Well, a simple motive is that in fact some Dems in office really are threatened by populism, and by elections. Some, not all. But some are genuinely threatened by any possibility of base-broadening. They live in safe congressional districts, or states (Schumer), themselves. Why would they open up access, just because not doing so is a losing proposition? After all, the smaller the pie, the larger their own piece in proportion.

Another motive is the obvious denial. Blaming ‘Russia’ is another way to delay the reckoning about their hand-picked candidate, Secretary Clinton.* That it makes them look like lying imbeciles is a small price to pay. The previous efforts at denial didn’t work–yes, Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin; no, abolishing the Electoral College and throwing a whole campaign into California wouldn’t help. But there’s always another effort, and another. (Looming behind this one is the next, exhorting faithless Electors to throw away American history and just vote for someone other than President-elect Trump.)

CIA

Meanwhile, someone knocked on the right office door in halls of CIA, and found–predictably–the right leaks for their kind of investigation.

From those wonderful people who brought you the Iraq War

These are national party leaders? They don’t notice that they are leaving it to Trump to point out a fundamental fact? — “These are the same people that said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.”

Fortunately, some CIA analysts still retain a more sensible perspective.

The news media

There is no point in listing all the media outlets now boosting the ‘Russia’ meme. Most of them also boosted the recounts. Almost all also tout Clinton’s popular vote lead without mentioning the massive vote total in California, thereby creating a vague impression that the national popular vote lead was across-the-board. The impression is false.

Clinton’s vote lead is IN CALIFORNIA

For the record, below is a sprinkling of the countless recent articles that refer to Clinton’s popular vote lead without mentioning that the numbers come disproportionately from California. This very quick list does not include television programs or online news aggregates, which would run the total into thousands. We may have a new conventional wisdom here, hardening like concrete before our very eyes. Or putting it a different way, we may have a spectacular example of a narrative fueled largely by reification, denial, and cross-cultural stereotyping taking on a life of its own inside national media outlets. (See ‘Russia’, above. Even the estimable Eugene Robinson seems to be getting on the bandwagon.)

Insert the words “IN CALIFORNIA” where needed:

New York Times, December 13: “Hillary Clinton’s growing lead over Donald J. Trump is now over 1 million votes, making this the second time a president has been elected without a popular majority since 2000.”

Chicago Tribune, December 12: “With almost all ballots finally counted, Hillary Clinton won the “popular” vote — that is, the total number of votes cast — by more than 2.8 million, about a 2.1 percent edge over Trump’s tally. This is a larger gap than the one in the 2000 election, when Al Gore won about a half-million votes more than George W. Bush did.”

Washington Post, December 12: “In the end, Clinton won the popular vote by more than 2.7 million votes, or 2 percent of all ballots cast.” (A bunch of WaPo writers have done the same; too many to list.)

International Business Times, December 12: “The latest popular vote totals Monday, as reported by nonpartisan election analysis group The Cook Report, show Clinton garnering 65,746,544 votes compared to Trump’s 62,904,682, a difference of more than 2.8 million votes. In percentages, Clinton’s locked down a plurality of 48.2 percent of the vote and Trump 46.2 percent.”

Mother Jones, December 7: “I figure it’s still worth periodically posting a reminder that far more people wanted Hillary Clinton as their president than Donald Trump.”

Time.com, December 1: “Hillary Clinton’s lead in total votes over President-elect Donald Trump has reached 2,526,184 as ballots continue to be tallied.”

What is the issue here, you ask? One issue is the credibility of major periodicals. When a big-city daily newspaper refers to Clinton’s popular vote lead without mentioning the massive four-thousand-vote lead in California, big newspapers lose even more credibility. Every thinking person who followed the election at all sees that item, or that headline about Hillary Clinton’s popular vote lead, and thinks, That’s mainly from California. But the self-styled analysts or pundits do not mention the obvious and valid point. The line from omission to distortion is short.

*I will deal more fully with the Clinton candidacy after the holidays, speaking of denial. It isn’t a very Christmas-like topic.

Recount may add Trump votes

Posted on by
Reply

Update December 6: Clinton supporters in Florida are petitioning for a recount there. Let’s take another look at the numbers in Florida, from the New York Times and that spreadsheet by Cook Political Report. As with Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (the piece below), there are no anomalies that suggest hidden votes for Clinton lurking uncounted in Florida.

Trump leads Clinton in Florida by 112,911 votes, as of now–a narrow win, in a big state. But the vote for “Others” is 297,178–more than twice Trump’s margin, for a total of more than 409,000 people who didn’t vote for Clinton, well outside a margin where a recount might reasonably be called for.

More importantly, those “others’ broke heavily for right-leaning candidates rather than for Jill Stein. As of now, the numbers in the NYTimes page are 207,043 for Gary Johnson; 16,475 for the Constitution candidate; 9,108 for Rocky de la Fuente; and 74,684 for Independent–a total of 307,310. Stein got 64,399.

In other words, any hope for a changed outcome for Hillary Clinton in Florida has to upset or reverse not only the margin between the major party candidates, but also a roughly five-to-one margin in favor of conservative-leaning ‘third party’ candidates. The hope is a null set. It is preposterous, and our news media who ignore the third-party tallies are failing in their duty to the public which has to determine when, and whether, a recount is called for.

[previous post below]

For the record, I support recounts. The right to vote is paramount, it should be an equal right, and tabulating votes accurately is more important than tabulating them fast. The public should be able to observe. Vote in private, count in public.

However, a recount will not only not change the 2016 outcome in Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, as the Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton campaigns themselves acknowledge. It is unlikely even that Clinton will net additional votes.

Take a quick look at the numbers for candidates other than Trump or Clinton. Reality check for commentators eager to blame ‘third parties’ for Clinton’s losses: in Michigan, Stein pulled 51,463 votes. But Libertarian Gary Johnson pulled 172,136. That’s a margin of more than three to one for the right-leaning ‘third party’ candidate over the left-leaning ‘third party’ candidate. Yes, the number of votes going to Stein in Michigan is more than the number by which Trump beat Clinton (10,704)–almost five times more. But the number going to Johnson is more than sixteen times greater than the winning margin.

Dr. Jill Stein

Dr. Jill Stein

In Pennsylvania, Stein pulled 49,278 votes. But Johnson pulled 144,536–almost three times as many, and more than twice the margin by which Trump beat Clinton in Pennsylvania (70,779). Trump’s margin as seen exceeded Stein’s votes. Conservative Party candidate Darrell Castle pulled another 21,242.

Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate

Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate

In Wisconsin, Stein got 30,980 votes–greater than Trump’s net over Clinton of 27,257. But Johnson got 106,422 votes, and the conservative Constitution Party candidate got 12,179. Adding these votes to those for the major party candidates yields a left-ish total of 1,413,190 and a right-ish total of 1,528,068. That’s a margin of more than 100,000 votes (114,868 to be precise, using the unofficial results given so far)–not the eyelash-thin margin screamed by the headlines.

Quick points: First, nothing in this picture suggests that hidden hordes wanted to vote for Clinton and were thwarted. Second, it’s funny how the name ‘third party’ applies no matter how many parties are listed. This dismissing everyone not locked into a major party should be rethought–especially in Wisconsin with its proud populist tradition. Third, even if the Democrats had won by a razor-thin margin in Michigan or the other two states, the thin margin would be shameful. From a small-d perspective, the Clinton candidacy was an embarrassment.

Fourth, blaming Clinton’s loss on a ‘third party’ is exactly what might be expected of the Clintons and their media allies (Rachel Maddow, for example)–but it is hardly progressive. Nor is it accurate. The fact remains that Jill Stein’s vote was substantially smaller in all three states than the votes for the Libertarian, Constitution, and other right-leaning candidates.

Meanwhile, this from Politico:

PROPUBLICA KNOCKS DOWN VOTER FRAUD CLAIMS — “We had 1,100 people monitoring the vote on Election Day. We saw no evidence the election was ‘rigged’ no matter what Stein or Trump say,” the investigative non-profit outlet said in a series of tweets last night. “Electionland had huge amounts of data. 600 ppl monitored social media. We had @LawyersComm call logs. We had 120,000 people texting us. We had 400 partner reporters across the country, including three of the largest news organizations in the U.S. We had voting experts in the room with us and election sources all over the country. We saw plenty of problems: Long lines, broken voting machines, incorrect poll books, confusion abt voter ID laws. But we saw no reason to doubt the results.” [Here, please imagine ‘handclap’ emojis where the ellipses are.] There … was … no … widespread … voter … fraud.” http://bit.ly/2gyBJ0K

It remains unclear why Dr. Stein is pursuing the recount. She did raise almost $7 million for the effort, which is the way to get Hillary Clinton’s attention. Ironically, Clinton has now joined the recount campaign, although Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin did not receive much love from the Clinton campaign in the form of campaign stops or more importantly policy addresses.

Clinton’s participation seems mainly to reflect her personal problems. As long as she can fan the dying ember of a hope that she is adored, apparently, she will keep the ‘election’ going. Again, no one projects that a recount will change the outcome. However, a delay hypothetically could take two states out of Trump’s win column on December 13 or December 19, whichever is treated as the Electoral College deadline.

Abolish the Electoral College? Why?

One problem with the abolish-the-Electoral-College picture is that it is hard to envision these three ‘Rust Belt’ states getting more attention without the prize of Electoral votes than they got in 2016 with a combined 46 Electoral votes, or 17 percent of the total needed to win the White House. As we already know, these areas are not booming.

Recent U.S. population growth

Recent U.S. population growth

Add Ohio, Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, and Illinois to Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and you get 41 percent of the Electoral votes needed to win. First, nothing makes neglecting these states anything but stupid, except for whatever makes it arrogant, self-important, or self-deluded to the point of delirium. Second, to my confreres in the media–if you want to avoid being perceived as elitist, quit using the phrase ‘Rust Belt’. Try losing your job and see how you like it, or watch your entire occupation go under. Wait–that’s already happening . . .

Progressives above all should repudiate this attitude. People who have a hard time finding decent jobs in small towns, open areas, or small cities should not be ridiculed. Nor should they be dismissed from the electorate, which might be the effect of abolishing the Electoral College. Look how well it worked this time.

I despise ridicule directed against any sector of the U.S. (like David Brooks’ comment about ‘gene pools’, for example). A superficial dismissal may rest–superficially–on a careless assumption of moral superiority (racial disparities in the Southeast, Latino poverty in the Southwest, random bigotry in the ‘Rust Belt’; take your pick). So what do the election analysts say about a small city like Binghamton, New York? This was a town where, if you recall, the big employer was IBM. Then IBM left–and now one of the town’s biggest employers is SUNY Binghamton, a nice place but not exactly hiring on the scale of General Motors or U.S. Steel back when. There is much to be said for the locale, from what I hear. You can get a very nice house for $40,000. But where do you find the job to pay for it?