Skip to content

All they are saying, is give fascism a chance

Thursday, December 19, 2024

I don’t write many blog posts anymore, but I can honestly say that I’ve written a number of them in which I’ve bemoaned the failure of the Democrats to message in a way that reaches people and provokes a favorable reaction.

We now face an incoming administration that by any measure must be labeled as fascist. Many of us on the ground realize that, but it would appear that many, make that most, of the folks we’ve sent to Washington as Democrats just don’t get it.

Two cases in point. The Democrats refused to make AOC ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, instead appointing an old geezer. Yes, he has more experience, but what he lacks is an understanding of how to articulate the Democratic position or to make sure the Democratic message is spread on social media. AOC understands how to use those things, and she would undoubtedly be better at getting opposition talking points out to a far wider audience than the old guy who got the appointment. The job of the Democratic members of Congress over the course of the coming years is to both oppose the fascist state and articulate the danger it poses in a way that reaches and convinces the greatest number of people.

There’s also a number of Democrats talking about working with the Republicans over the next two years. You have to wonder where these people have been for the past 20 years. Republicans relentlessly opposed everything the Democrats tried to do, and it worked, largely because (see above) besides being united they controlled the narrative. Democrats will get nowhere by working with the Republicans. They should oppose, oppose, oppose, and while doing so call the Republicans out for what they are: facists dedicated to making the rich richer.

It is beyond certain that when the economy tanks as a result of Republican policies, the Republicans will blame the Democrats. Once again, the Democrats will not be ready with a response. It’s more important than ever right now. There’s a small chance that we’ll have real elections two years from now, and that election may represent our only chance of avoiding the fascist state President-elect Musk Trump is looking to establish.

Another thought. A number of bloggers, and even Adam Kinzinger, are referring to Musk as “President Musk”. The Democrats should do that constantly. Nothing gets to Trump more than being laughed at, and the end result would probably be removing Musk from the picture. Moreover, the Democrats should constantly find ways to make fun of Trump.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

Who ever said a (Democratic) president could pardon someone?

Saturday, December 7, 2024

There’s a lot of talk out there about Biden preemptively pardoning people like Jack Smith, Liz Cheney and Fauci, people who have committed no crimes but would still be on the hit list of the Department of Injustice once Trump gets in.

Biden should do it, without question. The only question is whether the pardons will survive the current judiciary. There’s no question that such pardons should be the last word. They always have been. However, it’s also highly likely that the Trump appointees in the lower courts, and the bought and paid for Supreme Court will find previously unseen hairs to split.

I mean, how can you pardon someone unless you specifically specify the crime of which they are or may be charged or of which they have been found guilty. Sure, it’s impossible for Biden to specify the criminal charges that are likely to be brought against people who have committed no crimes, but that’s just further proof that the pardons don’t pass constitutional muster. It means he wasn’t fully aware of exactly what crimes these folks had not committed. There’s surely a judge in Southern Texas who could explain why this constitutional conundrum renders the pardons void, as could Aileen Cannon, and even though neither of them would have had personal jurisdiction over these folks in the olden pre-2024 days, it will be completely different now. The government gets to judge shop all it wants, provided, of course, that it’s a Republican controlled government.

The guy prosecuting Hunter didn’t even want to let it go, though the presiding judge felt differently. It’s hard to see what crimes they’ll cook up to charge against these people, but they’ll come up with something and while the “Supreme” Court might uphold the pardons in the end, they may still be stuck with huge legal bills and emotional turmoil in the process. We may even find ourselves getting an opinion from the court as to why criminal charges against Joe Biden for something he did while president are not subject to the immunity ruling because we forgot to mention it only applied to Republicans.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Not so sure there’s a bright side

Tuesday, November 26, 2024

Like a lot of other people, from what I’ve heard, I’ve essentially refused to absorb much of the news since the election. I decided last week that as of this past Monday I would phase back in to reading my blogs and other sources of information, though I will not be perusing the New York Times anytime soon.

It is hard to look on the bright side this time around. Prior to the first Trump installation, you could assume there would be boundaries that would rein him in, and there were to a certain extent, as he made the mistake of bringing some competent people on board, who tended to keep him from transgressing too much.

My own opinion is that he will now know no limits. He has now surrounded himself with people who will suck up to him by encouraging his excesses. Like any fascist he will demand that the legislature submit to all his demands, and in my opinion that’s exactly what the Republican House and Senate will do.

A sort of litmus test is going on as I write. He is naming people to his cabinet but not following the transition law, which mandates FBI background checks. He is also, it appears, intending to circumvent the Senate approval process for his appointees if he finds it inconvenient.

I thought I’d pass this post at emptywheel along, as I have a great deal of respect for her, and though I’m having trouble doing so, I can still approve of someone looking on the bright side.

She argues that Trump’s pick for Senate Majority leader, the loathsome Rick Scott, got only 13 votes, losing to John Thune. She also points out that Lisa Murkowski has vowed not to vote for any nominee who has not undergone a background check, and a few others have indicated a preference for background checks, though they haven’t gone so far as Murkowski and said they’d withhold their votes.

She sums up:

There are far too many Democrats dismissing the possibility that there can be meaningful opposition to Trump from Congress. The Senate, especially, held up some of Trump’s plans the first go-around, even before he sicced an armed mob on them. And if nothing else, these people love their own prerogatives, and so will — at least selectively — defend those (as the bid to insist on FBI background checks would be a means to do).

More importantly, we don’t have the luxury of assuming Republicans will routinely capitulate to Trump: It is the job of the Democratic party, at this point, to give them cause to do so. Yes, Mitch McConnell failed in 2021 when he had an opportunity to disqualify Trump. He will have further opportunities to amend his own failure, and it’s simply not an option not to fight to get him to do so. Not least, because the mere act of doing so effectively may have an effect in 2026, if elections are really held.

I hope she’s right, but I don’t think that’s the way things will work out. I think there may be taken Republican opposition of the Susan Collins variety, where individual Senators or Congresspersons might express “reservations” about what Trump is doing, but that will be for show and will likely become rarer as time passes.

I should add here that when I use the term “Trump” I am not necessarily referring solely to the very stable genius that bears that name. His mental powers are rapidly dwindling, and like any senile person he is easily manipulated. The people around him, who are now solely of the Stephen Miller variety, will be calling the shots from the rear. Project 2025 is a blueprint for fascism and its authors are now in charge.

Speaking of his senility, I do wonder how they will handle the inaugural address. Maybe they will decide there’s no need for one, because if they put him in front of a mic in that context he’s likely to ramble on about windmills and Hannibal Lecter. While the media tended to ignore his senility during the campaign, they’d (with the exception of Fox, Newsmax, et. al.) have to pay attention to it. In any event, I’m sure JD Vance is waiting for his opportunity to become the new Fuehrer.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Republicans | | Comments (0)

The Road to Fascism Straight Ahead

Friday, November 15, 2024

I’m still recovering. I don’t know if I ever will, nor do I think the country ever will. I’m terrified for my three grandchildren, who will likely live under a dictatorship.

As time went on, however, I began to see things more clearly. After Mitt Romney lost in 2012 I predicted that the next candidate they nominated would be a whackjob. While the Republican Party had, with the assistance of Fox, steadily propagandized a racist, homophobic base while harping on issues like abortion, the thinking among them then was that they could put those votes in the bank but still nominate people who were somewhat reasonable. People like John McCain and Mitt Romney. Their thinking was they could then appeal to people in the ever elusive middle But it was clear to me that the base was rapidly losing patience with people like that, and they would eventually demand a candidate that would cater to them in deed and not just in words. They got that person with Donald Trump, who cares nothing about issues but only cares about himself. Being a racist himself, he was perfectly happy to cater to them and give them what they wanted, so long as they gave him what he wanted: adulation and power. He would have been happy to advance a left wing agenda if that could have gotten him the power and adulation he craved, but those on the left are not as brainwashed as those on the right, so that was never a real possibility.

If memory serves, I first started blogging sometime in 2005, shortly after George W was reelected after, among other things, getting us into a war we had no need to be in, and slandering his war hero opponent when he himself had used his connections to dodge any chance he’d go to war. It was clear to me then that the Republican Party had no way of winning elections on the merits, so they had to appeal to fears and manufactured grievances. The party that had once had some members that put country over party was rapidly shedding such people. I could remember a day when while I differed with them on issues, I could at least respect people like Lowell Weicker, Howard Baker and the other Republican members of the House and Senate who made it clear to Nixon that he’d be impeached and convicted if he didn’t step aside.

Still, when I started doing this, I had no fear that the Republican Party would soon destroy the Republic and bring on fascism, nor did I ever think that the majority of voters in this country would vote in a fascist, particularly one who stood convicted of multiple criminal acts, was clearly suffering from dementia, and had never told the truth in his life.

I remember watching a video of David Brooks in 2016 insisting that Marco Rubio, a perceived “moderate” would certainly get the nomination rather than Trump. Given Brooks record of always being wrong, this was practically a prediction that Trump would win, but it is also emblematic of the Republican establishment’s own ignorance about the monster it had created. We on the left took no time in concluding that Trump had it locked.

Because Trump has no real principles, other than his need for adoration, he is fine with taking direction from those around him. As time has gone on, those around him have become ever more far right, as those who might be called “moderate” were cast aside as they failed to give him the approval he needed or, in some cases, recognized him for the fascist he is. His retinue is now completely fascist, as their Project 2025 blueprint makes clear.

Ever since the election I have avoided reading my blogs or, especially, the New York Times, which did so much to legitimize this monster. But I think I can safely predict some future developments.

There will never be another presidential election the outcome of which is not predetermined. Our elections will become much like those in Russia. They do have elections there, but everyone knows who’s going to win.

Especially if the Republicans take the House, Congress will become a rubber stamp for Trump. It is telling that Mitch McConnell, who I understand actually hates Trump, has insisted that the filibuster will survive. My guess is that he figures they can then propose all manner of terrible things to make the base happy and then blame the Democrats for their failure to pass them. Stuff like a national abortion ban, for instance. But if the filibuster stands in the way of Trump getting what he wants he will demand that it be ended and the Republicans in the Senate, including McConnell, will fall into line. Again, it’s not that Trump really cares about something like a national abortion ban, but if it’s something his people have gotten him to back then he will demand it because he has the mentality of a dictator and dictator’s get what they want.

The courts, already infested with vermin he appointed during his first term, will get even worse. Again, he had nothing to do with actually picking the judges he nominated in his first term. The Federalist Society did that for him, and he was simply invested in getting them confirmed because how dare anyone oppose him. This time around he may actually be involved with some of the appointments. My guess is he’ll reward Aileen Cannon with a Supreme Court appointment and give that joker down in Texas a promotion. But for the most part the far right wil tell him who to nominate, and he’ll go along. After all, actually vetting these people is a lot of work.

Quite likely the older Supreme Court justices will retire, either voluntarily or under pressure, so he can stack the court with young fascists that will be perfectly willing to decide that the constitution says whatever the Republican Party wants it to say. I would be totally unsurprised, for instance, if the Supreme Court were to declare that it made a big mistake back in the 1930’s, and the National Labor Relations Act is totally unconstitutional. And you can bet that states rights go down the toilet if Congress votes to make abortion illegal nationwide.

It’s quite likely that Trump will not serve out his term. I really think that JD will eventually invoke the 25th Amendment on the grounds that Trump is demented. But JD is now a committed fascist, so that won’t change anything. It could make it far worse, as JD is far more intelligent than Trump. On the other hand, he totally lacks charisma, which is a good thing. I wouldn’t call what Trump has charisma, but he emits something that hooks his followers, and I don’t think JD can emit something similar.

Ever since I have been writing this blog I’ve posted the closing scene from The Life of Brian on Good Friday, endorsing the view that one should always look on the bright side. I don’t see a bright side right now. I sincerely hope I’m wrong.

Afterword: I’ve categorized this under “Creeping Totalitarianism” but just to be clear, it isn’t creeping anymore.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism | | Comments (0)

A prediction

Tuesday, October 29, 2024

Looking on the bright side, this post assumes a Kamala win in November and a Democratic Senate.

Now, for the not so bright side.

A week or so ago a friend who is also a lawyer wrote to ask if I had any idea what the constitutional basis would be for the creation of a federal right to abortion, one of the planks upon which Kamala is running. He suggested the only basis he could come up with would be the commerce clause, which is a thin reed indeed upon which to rely.

I replied that the same question had occurred to me. Having overturned Roe v. Wade, the court has essentially declared that abortion is not a federal issue. I suppose you might try to rely on this section of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The argument would be that Congress has declared the right of an abortion to be among the privileges of citizenship.

None of these arguments will make any headway in the present Supreme Court and it’s a given that one or more red state attorney general would challenge the law. There was a time when some talking heads thought that John Roberts would, in order to protect his own reputation, be a sort of moderating influence on the court, but it has now become clear that he agrees with Macbeth:

“I am in blood Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er”

Roberts is now fully committed to the right wing agenda as are the rest of the six, so there’s really no chance any federal law protecting abortion rights would pass muster. It would be harder for the court to overturn a law that protects the right to travel to obtain an abortion, since some states have criminalized even that, but I’m sure they could come up with a pretext for doing even that, though it would require ignoring precedent, but that hasn’t been a problem for them. On the other hand, should the fascists win, the Court would have no problem upholding a federal ban on abortion.

UPDATE: I don’t know how much coverage the mainstream will give this story, but it is now clear that the Supreme Court will do what it can to assist in stealing the election. Perhaps Biden should consider putting the six of them in jail until January 6th. After all, he is immune from any criminal law, isn’t he?

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Cautiously optimistic

Wednesday, October 9, 2024

Like a number of people I know, I’m cautiously optimistic about the upcoming election, but on the other hand I don’t really want to commit myself to that position because I’m afraid I might jinx it. Partly, I think, because my mind boggles at the thought that the result should even be open to question, considering that one candidate is a criminal, sexual predator, and insurrectionist who is currently and obviously afflicted with oncoming senility (if it hasn’t already fully arrived). The fact that the results are even open to question is enough to dampen anyone’s optimism.

But, looking on the bright side, one reason to maintain that cautious optimism is the fact that a certain very stable genius continues to be blatantly pessimistic, inasmuch as he finds it necessary to strike out at hosts of perceived enemies, each time doing so revealing more of his mental decline. The latest example is his absurd demand that 60 Minutes be investigated for… well, it’s pretty hard to understand the precise reason why he wants them investigated, but it’s safe to say that this is yet another outburst revealing his fear about the upcoming election.

So, yet another reason to be cautiously optimistic, but we must all bear in mind that election officials in many of the states and 6 Supreme Court justices stand ready to steal it.

Filed in Presidential Politics, The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

Debate reaction

Wednesday, October 2, 2024

If nothing else, I had a good time while I watched the VP debate. Groton Democrats gathered to watch at the NY Deli, which is right next door to our headquarters. Once again they remained open so we could watch the debate together. The food is good, by the way, so if you’re in the neighborhood…

Going in, my expectations were that the press would call it for Vance or call it a draw, regardless of actual performance. Vance isn’t in the grip of senility like Trump, so it was a sure thing that he’d lie far more effectively, and of course the fact that there was to be no fact checking (I don’t see why the Harris people agreed to that) would protect him from having his lies exposed in real time, though one of the moderators did screw up and fact checked him, which provoked his whiny response that there wasn’t supposed to be any fact checking, which translates into “Hey, the rules are that I can lie as much as I want”.

Getting back to the press, since they had no choice but to call the first debate for Harris, they simply couldn’t call this one for the Democrats too, because that would be unfair, don’t you see?

My impression is that they’ve pretty much settled on calling it a draw, while soft pedaling Vance’s lies, which of course were considerable. In a way that’s a victory for Walz, because he did well enough to give them no grounds to justify a Vance win, which is what they would have preferred.

Another guess: it will be the late night comedians who will do the best job at deconstructing the lies. The good thing about that is that they reach a broader audience than the multiple social media outlets that will be doing the same thing. There will be a lot of takedowns on social media, but they have audiences that tend to search them out because they agree with their basic take on things. A bit like preaching to the choir. The comedians have a somewhat broader audience.

Anyway, in the long run I don’t think the VP debate will make much difference either way.

Filed in Media, Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

Nothing new here

Saturday, September 28, 2024

This article in the New London Day brought back memories. The Day reports that Old Lyme Democrats are using tracking technology to find the folks that are stealing their signs. There’s no indication that Republican signs are being stolen.

Back in 1980 I was actually planning on voting for Barry Commoner, but with a few days to go before the election I felt the shift going on in the electorate and became scared to death that Ronald Reagan would become president. So I dumped Commoner and went to work with the local Democrats to try to get Carter re-elected. Part of what I did was put up signs in partnership with another campaign worker. Those signs disappeared as fast as we could put them up. We would drive past locations where we had just put them up and they’d be gone. The Republicans obviously had workers whose job it was to take down signs.

I doubt it had much to do with the Reagan victory, a victory that started this nation on the Road to Fascism, to sort of borrow (part of) a phrase from one of the right’s favorite authors. I have always been irritated by the propensity of many Democrats (Obama comes to mind) to speak favorably of the guy who ushered in the Republican Party of today.

Anyway, back to the sign issue. It doesn’t surprise me at all that the Republicans are at it again, either as freelancers or as organized teams. Also, you are not supposed to put signs on the state’s or city’s rights of way along major roads, but they are often posted in such places, and 99% of them are for Republicans. The rules don’t apply to them, you see.

Speaking of signs, as treasurer of the Groton Democrats it is my lot to keep track of the donations coming in exchange for Kamala signs, which you can get at our headquarters, located at 768 Long Hill Road, if you so desire. The money is pouring in. People are enthusiastic about Kamala.

Also speaking of signs, I have done an unscientific survey, so to speak, as I ride by bike every day on various roads in the Groton/Ledyard/Stonington/North Stonington environs. Harris signs abound, usually accompanied by signs for other Democratic candidates. Trump signs are rare. Almost the only Republican signs you see are those for our incumbent State Senator, Heather Somers, she who speaks out of both sides of her mouth without actually saying anything, except when she takes credit for Democratic initiatives that she voted against. I have yet to see a Trump sign accompanying a Heather sign, and I’ve seen only one sign for Mike Franz, Joe Courtney’s opponent. It’s one of those signs that amounts to a confession that the person who put it up is a nutjob, and even that nutjob doesn’t have a Trump sign (yet).

Finally, and this has nothing to do with signs, if you’re a good Democrat, and care to watch Tim Walz trounce JD along with other Democrats, join us at the NY Deli, right next door to our headquarters. They are staying open late to host our debate watching. It’s not a fundraiser, except you have to buy food or drink from the very nice lady that runs the place.

Filed in Local issues, Republicans | | Comments (0)

A question answered

Saturday, September 21, 2024

A friend and fellow New London County attorney maintains an email list to whom he sends links of articles well worth reading, and in today’s email we get a link to an extremely interesting article in the Guardian entitled Is Donald Trump A Fascist?. Before answering that question I will digress for a moment.

It is interesting that it is unlikely such a question would be broached in an American newspaper of wide circulation. The term “fascism” is itself avoided, replaced by “Christian Nationalism”, which conveys a false impression to anyone not obsessed with politics. After all, Christians are supposed to be the good guys, and not all that many people understand that “nationalism” can be a pejorative. I’m not a Catholic anymore, but I retain my advanced degree in religion from Our Lady of Sorrows School. I’m fairly sure that were Jesus to return to this earth, the folks to whom this term is applied would, as Woody Guthrie sang “lay Jesus Christ in his grave”.

Now to answer the question. It doesn’t matter whether Donald Trump is a fascist. He has no fixed beliefs save one: that the only important thing in this world is Donald Trump. If he could have become president by running to the left, he would have done so, but he’s an accomplished grifter and he knows how the suckers in this country vote. He is primarily concerned with having his ego stroked, which is why he’s so sensitive about crowd sizes.

The fact is, however, that the people who will control him if he gets elected are, indeed, fascists. They even made the mistake of putting their plans in writing by way of Project 2025. Were he elected he will do what he is told so far as implementing those plans. Being totally uninterested in the details of the job, he will let others do it for him, and we know who those others will be. This was his modus operandi in his first term. Does anyone really believe, for example, that he gave a moments thought to the people he nominated to the Supreme Court or any other court. He was given names by his handlers and he signed off on them. So, it doesn’t matter whether he himself is a fascist, he is an enabler and a tool. If he wins, we will be subject to a government run by fascists, and with the help of the fascists on the Supreme Court that fascism will become permanent.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

Strategy or senility? You decide

Sunday, September 15, 2024

So, it’s been a few days since I, along with every other Democrat, had the pleasure of watching Kamala destroy the stable genius in the debate. In my case it was doubly fun because I was with a bunch of other Groton Democrats who got together at the New York Deli (right next door to our headquarters in Groton, not in New York) to watch the debate.

Since then I’ve become aware of two schools of thought about Trump’s craziness since the debate, e.g., his continued embrace of the “They’re eating the dogs and cats” lie and his recent “Truth” Social post that he hates Taylor Swift, a move that on its face seems to accomplish nothing other than putting Swift’s life in danger. It seems unlikely to move anyone into his camp, while it would seem likely to energize even more Swifties to go to the polls.

On to the two schools of thought.

One is the obvious. Trump is out of control mentally. His narcissism and creeping senility are combining, the result of which is outbursts that simply can’t help his campaign.

The other school of thought has it that these outbursts are strategic, a way of distracting the political conversation away from Trumps plan to usher in a fascist state.

There are good arguments for both sides of this particular debate. The media is easily distractible and, for the most part, will be glad to write about social media posts and Haitians eating cats and dogs. The fact that JD Vance has amplified these claims lends some support to the distraction theory, though a counter argument is that he doesn’t have a whole lot of choice. He can’t very well admit that Trump is mentally unfit. To the extent the focus is on this sort of stuff, Project 2025 can be pushed into the background.

As a counter argument, if this is a strategic thing, the fact is that Trump is incapable of thinking strategically, so it would have to have been thought up by his handlers, and that seems doubtful. They would have had to come to the conclusion that Trump could win by amplifying his mental incapacity, or that in any event he’d lose fewer persuadable voters (how can anyone still be persuadable?) by proving beyond doubt that he’s mentally incompetent than he would lose by being exposed as a fascist.

Looking on the bright side, it seems to me that whichever side is correct, the net result is that Trump is pursuing a course more likely to lose him voters than it is likely to gain them for him. That doesn’t mean there’s no danger of his election. Thanks to the sainted Founders, we are stuck with a system in which a candidate can get millions fewer votes than his or her opponent and still win the election. There’s no doubt in my mind that Kamala will get more votes than the genius, but that doesn’t mean she’ll be sworn in as president.

As an aside, I think I’m right in asserting that every time the Electoral College has elected a candidate who received fewer votes than his or her opponent, the winner was the worse of the two. Maybe there’s something to be said for majority rule.

Filed in The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)