Skip to content

The democratic process in action

I spent all of Tuesday (5:00 AM through 9:30 PM) working at my local polling place, checking in voters. Thankfully, I was assigned to the table where Democrats checked in, as it was more pleasant than dealing with Republicans would have been.

A few thoughts.

Primaries are one of those things that the Progressives gave us back in the early twentieth century, and in theory they are a good thing, and probably still are when the office in question is high profile enough. But I’m not so sure they’re a good thing in all cases, particularly the primaries that were held here on Tuesday.

I doubt whether the Democratic turnout exceeded 10% in the district in which I worked, and it is a district in which one would expect a relatively high turnout for regular elections. The Republican turnout was about numerically half of the Democratic turnout. Democrats actually outnumber Republicans in our district now, which is somewhat surprising since it is probably the most affluent district in town, but the numbers are such that the Republican turnout by percentage was less than that of the Democrats.

It was clear to me as we handed people their ballots that at least among the Democratic voters, many had no idea who was on the ballot, much less where any of them stood on the issues. That probably didn’t make much difference on the Democratic side, because in truth, there wasn’t much difference among them, as each would have satisfactorily filled the position for which they were running, and none of them are bat-shit crazy. The endorsed candidates were designated by asterisks next to their name, but I’m not sure whether that made much difference in how people voted, as I’m not sure many people realized that’s what a the asterisk meant. Two voters handed their ballots back after confessing they had no idea how to vote, but I’m sure they were far from the only such folks.

The Republicans in our district are, I believe (without any supporting data) mostly mainline Republicans who have not quite come to terms with the direction their party has taken. Keep in mind that very few of them came out to vote. I’m not sure that those who did appear were all whackjobs, but one woman did see fit to decry the awful fact that a certain criminal genius was subjected to a lawfully obtained search warrant the previous day. I suspect that statewide it was the whackjobs that showed up in the greater numbers on the Republican side, leaving them with Leora Levy (who is bat-shit crazy) as their candidate for US Senate, which in all likelihood will make Blumenthal’s task that much easier. Particularly on the Republican side, it appears that nationwide the party is driven to the ever more extreme right by an energized minority of Fox watching, QAnon believing nutcases.

So, I conclude that low turnout primaries are not terribly democratic, and it might be worthwhile considering requiring a non-endorsed candidate to not only win the primary, but to do so in a primary in which a given percentage of eligible voters turn out. This would probably benefit Republicans more than Democrats long term, at least in the sane states, as their nominees could drift back toward the mythical center and appeal to voters that people like Levy turn off. It wouldn’t be a cure-all, of course, and it’s entirely possible that the Republican Party has been so taken over by the fascists and conspiracists that it cannot be rehabilitated. But, for the sake of democracy, it’s not a bad idea to try.

Have we really come to this?

I ran across this today. Nikki Haley is thinking of running for president, and if she does she intends to concentrate on the threat posed by transgender people.

In a way, this is a sign that the Republicans are running out of people to openly hate, which I suppose tells us something somewhat good about the nation, though it’s true that some Republicans have decided that there’s no need to be quietly racist anymore. Still, for the most part, you can’t openly attack blacks for being black, Jews for being Jews, or gay people for being gay. Transgender people are now the new boogie-people.

I recently read a statistic to the effect that, when asked in a poll, the American people responded that about 30% of people are transgender, when the actual number is closer to .6%, which is close to what I would have guessed if asked.

It’s hard to believe that in any sane or rational country that this would be a winning issue for any politician, and I suspect that it will not be even in this country, at least not right away. Still, it is a sign that the Republican establishment, to which Haley clearly belongs, has adopted the fascist playbook. There must always be an “other” to distract from the fact that the fascists aren’t particularly interested in doing anything that helps people with their daily lives.

One has to wonder. If the anti-transgender movement fades as the anti-gay movement largely has, who are they going to pick on next?

Manchin’s Game

So, when I first heard that Manchin had struck a deal with Schumer, my reaction was: How will Lucy pull the football away this time? Well, it looks like I’ve found the answer.

You see, it seems that Joe really wants to eliminate what is truly a horrendous tax loophole that benefits very rich people, that being the carried interest tax rate that confers a super tax advantage on the already rich private equity managers.

Joe is adamant. If the carried interest loophole isn’t eradicated, then his support dries up.

Guess who opposes getting rid of the carried interest loophole? If you guessed Kyrsten Sinema you’d be right, and if you didn’t guess Kyrsten Sinema, you’re not keeping up with the news.

What are the odds that Sinema, who has not yet committed herself on the bill, will not support it unless the carried interest loophole is preserved? If you guessed there’s a 100% chance that will be her position, your guess is as good as mine.

Finally, what are the odds that Manchin knew when he threw his support to Schumer that Sinema would do his dirty work for him? See the previous paragraph.

I hope I’m wrong about this, but see above for the odds of that.

Some random thoughts

A month ago I speculated that Fox might be abandoning Trump. Since then both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post (both Murdoch properties) have decidedly distances themselves from the genius. As to Fox? Well, as the wicked witch noted while plotting to do in Dorothy, these things must be done slowly. But, as we learn from Crooks & Liars today, Bret Baier is stunned that the January 6th hearings have made Trump look horrific. It is going to be a slow process, as unlike GW, Trump will fight being consigned to the memory hole, but it looks like we’ll be seeing Fox slowly shift its line on Trump. Six months from now, they may have reprogrammed their viewers completely.

On a somewhat related subject, I’ve mentioned before that I’m somewhat addicted to the Palmer report, though I take what they write there with a grain of salt, the grain being particularly large when I’m being assured that some wished for outcome is just around the corner. Still, on some issues they have been more right than your standard pundit, and this post about Liz Cheney is, in my opinion, right on the money. For the most part she’s a despicable human being, which just goes to show how unbelievably despicable are the other Republicans. I give her credit for being against outright fascism, but then, she’s perfectly comfortable with giving legal cover to the vote suppressors who want to make sure that minority rule will continue in this country.

Pick a lawyer that suits your needs

I didn’t practice criminal law, but I do have some insight into basic legal principles, so this left me somewhat puzzled.

The excellent Marcy Wheeler notes here that the Trump appointed judge who presided over the Bannon trial opined that while he was bound by precedent to throw out Bannon’s advice of counsel defense, he wondered if it was still good law.

Back in the days when even judges appointed by Republicans were somewhat sane, the DC Circuit ruled that advice of counsel is not a good defense in a contempt of Congress case. Bannon’s judge has a point: the present Supreme Court may carve out an exception to that precedent for Republicans charged with contempt of Congress when Democrats are in the majority.

So, in the future, future Steve Bannons may merely have to follow the advice Smokey Robinson’s Mom gave to him: “You better shop around”. If the first lawyer you talk to tells you that you have to testify, find someone like Rudy Giuliani or John Eastman, who will tell you that you don’t have to testify. Case closed.

As an aside, and stop me if I’ve made this point before, but Marcy Wheeler’s blog, Emptywheel, is really the best reporting you’ll find anywhere on the various cases related to January 6th, Trump corruption generally, and other politically important prosecutions. If I was involved in representing either the government or the defendants in these various cases, I’d read her religiously. If I were a reporter for a major newspaper I’d do the same, so I could avoid the media screw ups that she constantly exposes.

Those who don’t learn from history…

Here’s a post over at Balloon Juice that once again makes you wonder how our elected representatives manage to continue to live in a fantasy world.

The post is about the fact that we may need up to four new senators to rid ourselves of the filibuster, as there are a couple of others that are hiding behind Manchin and Sinema that will, quite likely, support abolishing the filibuster only in limited circumstances. One of the is Angus King, of Maine:

King argues that with the filibuster gone, Republicans could turn around and ban abortion when they regain power, saying “today’s annoying obstruction is tomorrow’s priceless shield.”

How oblivious do you have to be to actually believe that “tomorrow’s priceless shield” will survive should Republicans regain Congress and the presidency?

True, the Republicans would not get rid of the filibuster if they only had Congress, as anything they passed could be vetoed. But if they get the presidency they will not hesitate to get rid of the filibuster, either entirely, or piece by piece as they vote to carve out exceptions to its use. There is nothing more obvious, particularly given McConnell’s history.

And, just as an aside, while King’s Senate colleague, Susan Collins, might be concerned about getting rid of the filibuster, she will do as she is told should the occasion arise.

There are 49 other Manchins we never hear about

This link should bring you to a number of Letters to the Editor at the New York Times, the first of which makes a point I’ve ranted at my wife about.

The press is once again making Biden’s inability to deal with the climate crisis all about the loathsome Joe Manchin. As the letter writer points out, that approach ignores the fact that there are 49 Republicans who have refused to deal with the climate issue. I’m sure Susan Collins is concerned, but, oddly enough, as so often happens, not concerned enough to actually do anything to address what is beyond a doubt the most critical issue we face.

The lack of Republican engagement on this issue, as on so many others, gets scarcely a mention in the press, because it is now considered simply normal Republican behavior to refuse to deal with the real issues facing the American people. They get a pass because they have established a history of indifference to the needs of the people, so the press concentrates on the one Democrat that follows their lead.

Given recent events, there is now a decent chance that the Democrats can hold onto the House, a chance that would be enhanced if they would learn how to properly convey their message. My own opinion is that there is a better than even chance that they will pick up some Senate seats. If that were to happen they can consign Manchin to purgatory, though he will no doubt anticipate his ostracism by switching parties, which he has already done in all but name. One must wonder if Sinema will follow his lead.

A scam by any other name

I’m fairly computer literate. When I got my first computer, a TI-99, I spent quite a few hours learning to program, and eventually, when I graduated to a PC, wrote programs I used at the office to actually do useful things, like auto dial my phone from an address book I wrote.

But I confess that I couldn’t begin to explain what a Blockchain is, though I understand it allegedly is intended to keep purchases of cryptocurrency both secure and private, though recent events have suggested that it’s not really capable of either.

I’m even more bewildered by NFTs, pieces of computer “art” that exist only as pixels, stored somewhere in the internet and allegedly “belonging” to only a single person. What has been particularly bewildering is the fact that people have been willing to spend many thousands of dollars for “art” that looks like badly drawn cartoons that you’d be lucky to get ten dollars for if it was painted on canvas and you actually physically owned it.

So I was a bit pleased to read this post at Vice this morning. Here’s the introduction:

Arguably no piece of software has been more central to the most recent crypto craze than MetaMask. With tens of millions of users, the digital wallet system has become the main access point to Ethereum, the blockchain that has given rise to stablecoins like Tether, play-to-earn games like Axie Infinity, metaverses like Decentraland, and NFT projects like the Bored Ape Yacht Club.

But after a precipitous crypto crash that has affected projects and people alike, the co-founders of MetaMask are now warning that the crypto ecosystem they helped create is currently an unsafe casino prone to Ponzi-like operations and exploitation.

It’s always nice when someone who should know reinforces your own beliefs, and I was particularly pleased with how one of the MetaMask founders described NFTs:

“…a form of a direct-to-consumer sale of an imaginary good”.

That’s precisely how I’ve conceptualized it to myself ever since I first read about them. People have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for things that for all intents and purposes have no independent existence. What I find most amazing about this is that it proves what a great country this is. Where else could anyone stupid enough to spend that kind of money on an imaginary piece of trash art have enough money to do so?

A bit of speculation

I have to say that I like the January 6th committee’s pattern of having Liz Cheney drop a bombshell at the end of each hearing. Today we learned that the genius tried to tamper with a witness, who refused to take his call, notified his or her lawyer, who notified the committee, which notified the DOJ. All the blogs I go to say it’s clear proof of criminal witness tampering, but, not being a criminal lawyer, I have no opinion on that, as I don’t know if the laws apply to someone who is a witness to a congressional panel rather than a court.

Something I haven’t seen any comment on is the fact that Trump felt it necessary to make the call himself, rather than have someone else do his dirty work, which has always been his pattern in the past. Just ask Michael Cohen, among many others.

It suggests that Trump may be running out of patsies, who may have decided to abandon what they perceive is a sinking ship.

Sorry Adam, history is written by the winners

I give Adam Kinzinger credit for sticking up for the democratic process, but I think there’s a good possibility he’s wrong about this:

I think what’s most important is, again, what does history say in five or 10 years? Because I can guarantee — well, I can get about as close as I can to guaranteeing that, in about 10 years, there’s not going to have been a single Trump supporter that exists anywhere in the country. It’s like Nixon. There were a lot of people that supported Nixon until he was out of office, and then everybody was like, “No, nobody supported Nixon.

This presumes that things will, over the next ten years, return to “normal”, when there is no reason to believe they will, partly because people of somewhat good will, like Kinzinger, refused to believe that the Republican Party was a fascist institution when all the signs were there early on.

History is written by the winners, and there is no reason to believe that the right wing’s grip on the American judiciary, the unrepresentative American legislatures, and a great share of the American media will relax in the next ten years. There’s every reason to believe that the fascists will win, as any attempt to stop them will be frustrated by legislative bodies owned and operated by the right and/or a Supreme Court that has abandoned all restraints to help impose a theocratic fascist state on the American people.

The process of re-writing history has already begun, given the moves in states like Florida and Texas to ban the teaching of any truthful thing that might hurt the fee-fees of racists. The folks at Fox are, of course, reinforcing the push to ban factual history.

If they pull it off, and there’s every reason to suppose that they will, Trump will remain a cult figure and the mainstream media, in order to survive financially, will conform to the demands of the fascist thought police.

Nixon was never the center of a cult, and the Republican Party had just begun its transition from a respectable political party to an anti-democratic purveyor of hate wrapped in religion and other conspiratorial myths, all designed to keep the oligarchs safely in control, when he resigned. There were respectable Republicans back then, including a majority of congressional Republicans, such that Nixon realized he was bound to be convicted upon impeachment, and remember that requires a two thirds majority of the Senate. That type of Republican has disappeared, and there is no reason to believe they will reappear in the next ten years.