Author: John Hanno

Daily Beast

How the QAnon Crazies Went From Comet Pizza to the National Butterfly Center

Eleanor Clift – February 9, 2022

The National Butterfly Center, in Mission, Texas, was forced to close indefinitely after Kimberly Lowe, a fringe congressional candidate running in a GOP primary in Virginia, visited the site with hopes of uncovering a child sex-trafficking hub.

Denied entry based on her trail of inflammatory Facebook posts, Lowe became belligerent. A war of words and a physical altercation with the center’s director followed. Soon after, right-wing media featured video from outside the center’s gates alleging “credible threats of the cartels trafficking children through the butterfly center.”

The false claims follow the same script as the Pizzagate conspiracy theory in 2016, when Democrats were falsely accused of abusing children and holding them captive in the basement of Comet Ping Pong, a pizzeria in upscale northwest Washington, D.C. that doesn’t have a basement. But proving or debunking a conspiracy theory isn’t the point.

Crisis and Opportunity Could Lead to a Biden Bounce Very Soon

The point is to inflame and excite a Republican base that flirted with (or openly embraced) the QAnon conspiracy theory alleging a Deep State cabal of Democratic-Satanic pedophiles—and has focused its energy on trying “Stop the Steal” of a legitimate election that didn’t go their way.

Multiple conspiracy theories spawned by rage and grievance are coming together in a powerful and frightening GOP coalition.

“Far-right candidates like Kimberly Lowe have a blueprint on how to ride conspiracy theories and extreme rhetoric to office,” Kristen Doerer, managing editor of Right Wing Watch, said in an email. “They only have to look to Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert or Madison Cawthorn—all of whom have become MAGA celebrities—and see that’s a winning strategy.”

Harassing butterfly conservationists is cowardly enough, but for extremists looking for role models, Greene is hard to top. She harassed David Hogg, a survivor of the high school school shooting in Parkland, Florida, in 2018, suggesting the shooting that took 17 lives was a false flag.

“They are not just conspiracy theorists. They’re movements, they’re networks, and they span across multiple social media platforms,” Doerer told The Daily Beast. “These conspiracy theorists became valuable for the Republican Party because they can spread the Republican Party’s message whatever that might be throughout their networks. One only has to look at the cavalcade of conspiracy theorists traveling the country for the ReAwaken America Tour to see how large this network has become.”

The confluence of events that led to closing the butterfly sanctuary did not begin or end with Lowe’s visit. An account in The New York Times describes the escalation and the involvement of familiar figures like ex-Breitbart boss and Trump White House senior adviser Steve Bannon and Former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn.

The 100-acre site along the Rio Grande is near the path of the promised wall that helped elect Trump, and its construction remains a magnet for his supporters. Bannon raised money to pay for the wall when Congress wouldn’t. He was charged with fraud for absconding with the money. Trump pardoned him. Flynn recently spoke at a rally in support of the wall in nearby McAllen, Texas, where protesters with long guns held vigils.

Adam Klein is an associate professor of Communication Studies at Pace University, whose most recent book is Fanaticism, Racism and Rage Online. He told The Daily Beast that he listened to Bannon’s podcast the previous week recounting his version of the events at the butterfly center. The episode was titled, “Sex Slaves at the Border,” fueling the conspiracy theory swirling around the butterfly center.

Many modern right-wing conspiracy theories draw on the same storyline—which is that liberals and elites and Democrats are depraved. What is devilishly different about the butterfly center conspiracy is “marrying it to another valuable currency, anger at the border,” says Klein. He calls it “old poison in a new bottle.”

Jared Holt, a resident fellow at Atlantic Council who follows digital extremism, said his first reaction to the butterfly center’s closing was “sad to see this happen again. Conspiracy theories about this place have been floating around since 2017.”

Proximity to the wall’s construction path thrust the center into the fray, combined with rhetorical excesses on the right where opponents “are not just disagreeing but acting nefariously and are part of a larger conspiracy,” said Holt. Toss in vile accusations of sex-trafficking, which is universally reviled, “and the people who believe these conspiracy theories then place themselves in a heroic bulwark position, so in their minds they are combating these evils head on.”

The Jan. 6 Committee Members Are Patriots Making Sure Treason is Fully Documented

Monitoring this culture of true believers motivated by baseless conspiracy theories, Holt says that “any lasting solution will have to include very clear line drawings from influential Republican figures who state that this kind of behavior is unacceptable and that it is false. No amount of news media or statements from Democrats will make a difference. Until people who are politically aligned are able to speak to them and they listen, it’s going to be an uphill battle.”

With the midterms looming and control of Congress in the balance, there are few profiles-in-courage within the party whose members parrot conspiratorial theories like the Big Lie to placate Trump.

“This conspiratorial wing has gained so much sway that we’ll see more politicians catering directly to it, and that means we’re going to get more Marjorie Taylor Greenes,” says Holt. And if you’re thinking the voters will reject these extremists, “Jewish spaceships weren’t too much for her constituents,” he notes, referring to Greene’s widely ridiculed claim that Jewish space lasers caused California’s wildfires.

As for the butterfly center, the director has taken to carrying a sidearm, telling The New York Times that her board of directors won’t like it but the people attacking the center “need to know they’re not the only ones who carry weapons.”

Herald Tribune

Thursday’s letters: GOP a ‘fascist cult,’ jurors underpaid, seagrass in danger, more

Sarasota Herald-Tribune – February 10, 2022

How far the formerly great GOP has fallen

So, “ordinary American citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse”? This from the Republican National Committee. Has the GOP finally gone completely, insanely fascist for all to see?

Anybody with eyes, ears and a brain knows 100% that the domestic terrorist invasion of our Capitol Jan. 6 was not “legitimate” in any way! The insurrectionists beat Capitol police officers, causing many serious injuries and at least one death.

Legitimate? They brandished Nazi, Confederate and Trump flags. They caused great damage to the Capitol, even defecating in that sacred place and smearing it on walls and statues. Disgusting!

This latest move by the RNC shows just how repulsively low the formerly great party has fallen. It is now firmly a fascist cult, no longer a “political” party.

I cannot imagine how any American who cares about our country, our Constitution and our democracy could consider voting for any Republican for any office. I swear I will never vote for a politician with an “R” after his or her name. Period.

Dan Awalt, Bradenton

Don’t be fooled by political propaganda

Gauzy television ads and full-color mailers by the “Sun Coast Alliance” are urging Sarasota County voters to overturn our 2018 election results on March 8.

Who is Sun Coast Alliance? Why is it spending so much money on us?

Sun Coast Alliance is a Tallahassee political action committee that recently received $100,000 from something called “Serious Conservatives.” Who might its donors be? That information is “confidential.”

No surprise there. In 2018, Sarasota voted overwhelmingly to replace our antiquated, countywide system of electing county commissioners with single-member districts: Each district elects its own commissioner, the same way we elect state and federal representatives.

We voted for this change because we understand that a countywide voting system guarantees continued control of our commission by developers and large-money interests. Witness Siesta Key.

In 50-plus years, not one Democrat or independent has been elected to the commission.

The commissioners, outraged by the voters expressing their will, have forced another wasteful vote. And groups like “Serious Conservatives” and “Sun Coast Alliance” are doing their bidding.

Do not be deceived by the disingenuous propaganda you are receiving. Vote “no” on the charter amendment that seeks to reimpose the system we rejected four years ago.

Barbara J. Katz, Longboat Key

Jury pay in Florida embarrassingly low

This past year I became a permanent Florida resident and, as is the case in many states, I recently received a jury summons for the 12th Judicial Circuit Court, in Sarasota County.

I am over 70 years of age and retired. As such, I could easily check the appropriate box on the form and be permanently excused from jury duty. However, not unlike many other citizens, I believe it is your civic duty when called for such things to do so, if able, and I most likely will, but not before taking pen to paper to register my disappointment with the embarrassing compensation for jurors in Florida.

For those not aware, jurors in Florida state courts receive $15 per day for the first three days – if not paid by their employer – and $30 per day thereafter, with no mileage allowance, and gasoline currently costing nearly $3.50 per gallon, making Florida jury pay among the lowest in the country.

If the state can find millions to investigate unwarranted voter fraud claims, it can certainly find the few dollars needed for equitable juror compensation, given the cost of living today.

Edward F. McKee, Venice

Save seagrass beds by opposing Senate bill

Sometimes bills proposed in the Florida Legislature do not appear consequential until enacted and then their negative impact is realized too late. Florida Senate Bill 0198, which expands easements in seagrass mitigation, is one of those stealth measures with detrimental impact.

Seagrass is difficult to cultivate and takes years to establish. After seagrass beds are destroyed, replacing them is often unsuccessful and in no way compares to what was lost.

Seagrass is important because it provides shelter and food for manatees, fish, crabs and shellfish. Thousands of acres have been destroyed by pollution because of development, weak regulations and poor compliance, so we now have saltwater deserts devoid of life. Hundreds of manatees are dying of starvation.

Why would legislators even consider further destruction of existing vibrant seagrass? Our Florida coastal environment will be forever impacted and needs our proactive response.

Please alert our legislators to the harmful consequences of SB 0198 and request they vote against it.

Linda Vertefeuille, Bradenton

HuffPost

Stormy Daniels Tears Into Her Ex-Lawyer Michael Avenatti With A Zinger About Naked Trump

Lee Moran – February 9, 2022

Porn actor Stormy Daniels said she is “far more angrier” with her former lawyer Michael Avenatti than with ex-President Donald Trump, with whom she said she had an affair that she was paid to keep secret.

Last week, Avenatti was found guilty of cheating Daniels out of nearly $300,000 that she’d been advanced to write a book about her alleged affair with Trump.

Daniels tore into Avenatti in an interview Tuesday with NewsNation’s Dan Abrams, mocking her former lawyer with a reference to her relationship with Trump.

“He doesn’t scare me. I’ve seen Donald Trump naked. Nothing Michael Avenatti can say will scare me,” Daniels cracked.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, said Avenatti ― who put her on the stand for several hours during his trial ― had personally betrayed her.

“I only met Trump a handful of times, not even. I didn’t consider him to be a friend,” she said. “I didn’t have private conversations, I didn’t trust him, and he certainly didn’t steal from me.”

“Michael Avenatti betrayed my trust in every way possible. He lied to my face. He lied about me,” she added.

Watch the interview here:https://www.youtube.com/embed/1lr-oCJsQjY?rel=0

Business Insider

Sidney Powell was ordered to resubmit her request to reverse a sanctions order because her brief was full of mistakes

Sonam Sheth – February 9, 2022

• The GOP lawyer Sidney Powell was ordered to refile her request to reverse a sanctions order.
• The original brief she filed had several mistakes in it, an appeals court said.
• A federal judge sanctioned Powell and several others for filing an election fraud lawsuit “in bad faith and for improper purpose.”

The Republican lawyer Sidney Powell has been ordered to refile a request to reverse sanctions imposed on her because the original brief she filed was full of mistakes.

A case manager for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals — which oversees parts of Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee, and Ohio — told Powell that her brief did not “comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure or Sixth Circuit Rules” and that she must resubmit it.

Powell and other GOP-aligned lawyers asked the court earlier this week to reverse what they characterized as an “intemperate” sanctions order that a lower court judge imposed on them last year.

US District Judge Linda Parker, who ordered the sanctions in a scathing ruling last August, said Powell and eight of her co-counsels filed an election fraud lawsuit in Michigan “in bad faith and for improper purpose.”

The ruling came after Powell repeatedly promised to “release the Kraken” through a slew of lawsuits alleging that the 2020 election was chock full of widespread voter fraud and electoral malfeasance. None of the suits were successful, and Powell and her co-counsels were widely mocked for failing to do the most basic due diligence.

They “presented pleadings that were not ‘warranted by existing law’ … and contained factual contentions lacking evidentiary support or likely to have evidentiary support,” Parker’s sanctions ruling said.

“Further, given the deficiencies in the pleadings, which claim violations of Michigan election law without a thorough understanding of what the law requires, and the number of failed election-challenge lawsuits that Plaintiffs’ attorneys have filed, the Court concludes that the sanctions imposed should include mandatory continuing legal education in the subjects of pleading standards and election law,” it continued.

In addition to sanctioning Powell and the other lawyers involved, Parker referred the attorneys for possible suspension or disbarment because their role in the lawsuits indicated they were not fit to practice law.

In their brief requesting that the order be reversed, Powell and her co-counsels said Parker did “everything possible to make Appellants seem overwrought, dangerous lunatics.”

They also quoted William Shakespeare.

“In the canonical account of treachery towards a sovereign, it is one of the supporters of the pretender to the throne who proposes, ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.'”

“That is because ‘Shakespeare knew that lawyers were the primary guardians of individual liberty in democratic England,'” the brief said. “Americans know this too. Sanctions are not a saber but the resulting damage to civil society is the same. Shutting down speech is not our way.”

Powell made headlines while spearheading then-President Donald Trump’s failed legal effort to overturn the results of the 2020 US election.

“We’re representing President Trump, and we’re representing the Trump campaign,” former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said at a November 2020 news conference with Powell and Jenna Ellis.

“There are a lot more lawyers working on this, but I guess we’re the senior lawyers,” he continued. Ellis, who spoke after Giuliani, described the group as an “elite strike force team that is working on behalf of the president and the campaign to make sure that our Constitution is protected.”

However, despite the fact that Trump endorsed Powell by name and discussed a plan to appoint her special counsel to investigate the election results, Trump’s campaign distanced itself from Powell after she made a series of increasingly convoluted and unhinged claims about the election.

The Atlanta Black Star

‘This Was Attempted Murder’: Two White Men Chased and Shot At a Black FedEx Driver While He Delivered Packages; Attorney Slams ‘Too Light’ Charges for Father-Son Duo

Nicole Duncan-Smith – February 9, 2022

A Black Federal Express driver says that he was shot at by a white man during his shift. The 24-year-old man has given pictures to the authorities of the vehicle he was using for the deliveries showing the bullet holes from the alleged shooting.

According to the Mississippi Free Press, D’Monterrio Gibson was on the clock working when two white men attacked him on Monday, Jan. 24. The men were identified as Gregory Case, father, and Brandon Case, son.

The young man works for FedEx and was delivering packages in the Jackson suburb of Brookhaven, Mississippi, around 7 p.m. when a white pickup truck drove toward the residence located close to the designated address on the drop.

Gibson recalls the events of that night, saying to the Free Press, “In my mind, I’m thinking [the driver] is leaving to go to the store or something like that, but then they get extremely close to me and start blowing their horn. I proceed to leave the driveway. As I’m leaving the driveway, he starts driving in the grass trying to cut me off.”

After assessing the situation, Gibson says his “instincts” kicked in and he swerved out of the truck’s way. Gregory Case was driving the truck.

“I start hitting the gas trying to get out of the neighborhood because I don’t know what his intentions are,” he told the outlet.

“I drive down about two or three houses. There’s another guy standing in the middle of the street pointing a gun at my windows and signaling to me to stop with his hands, as well as mouthing the word, ‘Stop.’ I shake my head no, I hide behind the steering wheel, and I swerve around him as well. As I swerve around him, he starts firing shots into my vehicle.”

The man standing in the middle of Junior Trail with the firearm was Brandon Case, 35, WLBT reports.

The young man talked to his manager at the FedEx office once he was able to get to the end of the street and reported the incident.

“They’re shooting at you?” he said his manager asked before telling him to “head back to the station” as soon as he was able. However, as he tried to leave the area he saw the white pickup truck that tried to corner him on the grass approaching him again.

“I just went as fast as I could. He chased me all the way to the interstate,” he recounted, claiming that the truck stopped following him 10 or 15 minutes after getting on the highway.

He called the office again and spoke to a different manager, who told him the office would file a police report in the morning. Gibson did not wait. He reported the assault himself.

“I reached dispatch and let him know what was going on, and I only had a chance to get a little of the story out when he cut me off and he was like, ‘Were you at this address?’ I said yes,” Gibson said.

The dispatch told the man that they had received a call reporting that “a suspicious person” was at the address in question. Gibson says he responded, “Sir, I’m not a suspicious person, I work for FedEx. I was just doing my job.”

As Gibson continued to tell his story, he mentioned that the men shot at him, to which the dispatcher allegedly responded, “Well, they didn’t tell me that.” The dispatcher took his name down and told him that he would give it to a supervisor to continue to document his report.

After returning to the FedEx station, the first manager examined the van he was using during the day.

Gibson reported that he and the manager found, “There were bullet holes all in the back of the van, inside packages and everything like that.”

Carlos Moore of The Cochran Firm, the attorney now representing Gibson, showed photos to the outlets of the bullet holes in the truck, in packages, and one bullet on the floor of the vehicle.

Despite being a uniformed delivery driver for FedEx, a look that includes the brand’s signature color and logo, Gibson was driving a white Hertz van at the time of the shooting.

On Tuesday, Jan. 25, Gibson and one of his managers returned to Brookhaven to file a report with that city’s department.

The police report reads, “Ms. Candice Welch, said she was Mr. Gibsons boos [sic], the van had at least [sic] two bullet holes, One in the back door and one in the bumper, and three packages inside had bullet holes in them. She also had a picture of a bullet, that is still laying on van.”

Gibson alleges that even filing the report made him violated. One of the three officers that he spoke to asked him if he did “anything to make them think (he) looked suspicious.”

“I felt disrespected at that point because even if I did, they still can’t take the law into their own hand. So I told him all I did was my job. If they think that I was suspicious, that was on them. He was like ‘OK, I was just asking,’” he expressed.

One officer took him back to the scene of the crime and looked for evidence of the shooting, but nothing was to be found.

Six days after the police report was filed, the father and son turned themselves in.

On Tuesday, Feb. 1, the father was charged with a count of conspiracy assault, and the son was charged with one count of aggravated assault. The cases were released on $75,000 and $150,000 bonds, respectively, a day later.

Moore stated to WLBT, “We believe those are too light charges. We believe this is attempted murder. They had no justification under the law to do what they did. This man had done nothing wrong, and we believe it was racially motivated.”

Gibson has alleged that the two men who assailed him are related to the Brookhaven assistant police chief, Chris Case, which is why the men were allowed to turn themselves in a week later.

Brookhaven Police Chief Kenneth Collins says that is not true, stating that Case is not connected to the investigation and was told by the officer he is not related to the father and son.

His attorney said his client plans on approaching the FBI and the Mississippi Bureau of Investigations to open an official investigation, and ask the U.S. Department of Justice “to prosecute this as a hate crime.”

Moore said that his client’s experience had a striking resemblance to the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery, the Black man who was chased down and killed by three white men in south Georgia in 2020.

“It’s just sad that it happens. It seems to be a copycat duo copying off the Ahmaud Arbery case,” Moore said.

“They saw this man was a Black man, and they just hauled off and shot at him multiple times, at least the younger son did. The older guy tried to entrap him. They were working concertedly to try to entrap and kill this man. I mean, they shot at him several times. It’s amazing that he survived.”

Free Press reporter Ashton Pittman wrote on Twitter that the local NAACP planned a new conference to address the Gibson attack on Saturday, Feb. 5. He alleges that the local police “expecting a protest, dispatched more than a dozen officers in gear to block off the area.” The news conference was canceled.

“Lincoln County NAACP President Rico Cain says he decided to cancel today’s press conference out of respect for the family and because Black residents in Brookhaven do not feel safe coming here to speak out about the racism they’ve experienced amid such a large police presence.”

Gibson started working for FedEx during the pandemic in July 2021. Despite the traumatic incident, FedEx did not change his delivery route. Gibson has not returned to work and is currently on unpaid time-off, stating he was “uncomfortable” and “anxious” about resuming the assignment.

He is waiting for the delivery service to find a different route for him.

HuffPost

Top Obama Lawyer Hits Republican National Committee With Damning New Nickname

Lee Moran – February 9, 2022

MSNBC political analyst Neal Katyal, who served as acting solicitor general in the Obama White House, on Tuesday branded the Republican National Committee with a new nickname.

Katyal, appearing on “The Last Word,” repurposed the acronym RNC to mean “Republican National Conspiracy” as he slammed GOPers seeking to whitewash, downplay and cover up the deadly U.S. Capitol riot.

Katyal also mocked former President Donald Trump’s reported pattern of destroying documents, in violation of the Presidential Records Act.

“I suppose Trump has had stressful work experiences,” Katyal told anchor Lawrence O’Donnell, likening Trump to a “toddler.”

“It must have been frustrating for him to stroll into the White House at 3 p.m. on any given day and find somebody covered his desk with more of that paper with the strange squiggles on it,” he added. “But, you know, you can’t tear it up.”

HuffPost

‘Utterly Humiliating’: Chris Hayes Spots Sen. Ted Cruz’s Latest Embarrassing Moment

Ed Mazza – February 10, 2022

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes tore into Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for again downplaying the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol.

Hayes said it’s all because of an “utterly humiliating” appearance on Fox News in which Cruz had to “beg for forgiveness” from Tucker Carlson for calling the assault a “terrorist attack.”

Carlson, on the other hand, has aired wild conspiracy theories about Jan. 6 and defended the attackers.

Now, Hayes noted, Cruz is going even further to please Carlson.

“Today, he is, of course, out attacking Mitch McConnell, which is the point of all of this conditioning that those folks are up to, hoping Trump or Tucker’s watching, and will tell him that he’s a good boy,” he said.

This week, McConnell described the Jan. 6 attack as “a violent insurrection.” Cruz, in turn, accused McConnell of repeating “the political propaganda of Democrats.”

Hayes said Carlson must be pleased.

USA Today

Texas might be a red state now, but the Lone Star State is turning blue right before our eyes

Chris Chu de León – February 8, 2022

Deep in the heart of Texas – somewhere between the starry desert nights of El Paso and the blooming sage of Beaumont – is the steady beat of profound contradictions.

Despite the fact that people of color made up 95% of the population growth in the past decade, the state’s halls of power remain almost exclusively in the hands of old, white male lawmakers. Although Texas is on the cusp of turning blue, these same lawmakers banned abortion after about six weeks and restricted voting rights, culminating in possibly the most conservative legislative session in a generation.

As a result, Texas might seem like a lost cause to Democrats across the nation. There has never been a more urgent moment, however, for Democrats to organize and fight for transformative change in the Lone Star State.

Importantly, the majority of Texans oppose recent conservative priorities. Just 32% of Texans want to make abortion laws stricter, yet Republicans banned up to 90% of abortions, primarily affecting women of color. Only 19% of Texas voters believe there is frequent voter fraud, yet lawmakers cemented Texas’ status as the hardest place to vote in the country by restricting early voting options and empowering partisan poll watchers.

Not only are these laws antithetical to the popular will of constituents, they also disproportionately harm people of color like my family.

Reasons for hope in Texas politics

I was born in Houston to immigrants from Hong Kong and Mexico. Despite improbable journeys across two countries distant shores away, my parents collectively believed – they collectively hoped – that America’s Lone Star State would give them and their future children a shot at success.

We settled down in southwest Houston – a community filled with signs written in Chinese characters, the rhythmic sizzle of al pastor on the grills of dueling taco trucks, and the low vibration of chopped and screwed bass pulsing from car speakers. Our house was steeped in the melodic hum of Spanish, Cantonese and English, hushed only by the sound of the front door slamming as my parents shuffled out for work. My dad would often come home from work shortly before my mom headed out for her late-night shift as a nurse.

They worked, tirelessly, so my brother and I could have opportunities they never had. My work as a community organizer in Texas, a soldier and a graduate student at Harvard are just as much their achievements as they are mine.

Texas opened doors for my family, but Republicans who hold all statewide offices and both U.S. Senate seats are now trying to slam the door shut, lock it and throw away the key. Through gerrymandering, they reduced the number of majority-Black and Latino congressional districts and split up Asian communities – significantly diluting political power for the Texans of color who have driven population growth.

There is, however, reason to be hopeful. Reason to keep organizing, knocking doors, making phone calls, sending texts and persuading Texans from every corner of the state to vote. Reason to act now, else risk losing generations of progress made in enfranchising Black and brown communities.

Democrats, who have been advocating for expanding voter access and reproductive health, have made significant gains in Texas. In 2018, with Beto O’Rourke, Democratic performance improved by 13.9 percentage points from the previous midterm. In 2020, Democrats improved their margin by 3.3 percentage points from 2016.

While Texas Democrats still face daunting historical odds – having not carried the state in a presidential election since 1976 or won statewide since 1994 – parallels can be drawn to Arizona, another border state where Republicans’ hold has eroded.

Before 2020, Arizona had voted Democratic only once in a presidential election since 1948 and Democrats had not occupied both U.S. Senate seats since 1952. These changes were catalyzed by a diversifying electorate similar to Texas and aggressive investment in organizing to reach young voters and voters of color.

America’s future is in Texas

As the progressive wing of the party ascends nationally, everyday Texans are moving in lockstep. The state was fewer than 5 percentage points away from picking Bernie Sanders as its 2020 Democratic presidential nominee. Following the primary, the Texas Democratic Party adopted the most progressive platform in state history, including planks of Sanders’ most transformative policies like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal.

Moreover, the stakes are too high to lose faith. Texas’ 40 electoral votes are on the table. To put the state’s seismic political weight into perspective, based on the current electoral map, Democrats could lose Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – and still take the White House if they won Texas.

America’s future is Texas. The state’s rapid diversification and leftward lurch in politics are emblematic of broader trends across the nation, which could end up looking like Texas sooner rather than later. The people in power, however, would rather not have you know that.

But the Texas I know is Black and brown, with more than 50% of the state’s population being Black, Latino or Asian.

The Texas I know is young, with nearly half of the state being younger than 35.

The Texas I know is worth fighting for.

Chris Chu de León is a native Texan and community organizer. He is a graduate student at Harvard University, where he’ll commission as a U.S. Army officer.

USA Today

Is this the beginning of the end for Trumpism or the Republican Party?

Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY – February 9, 2022

It was a Republican National Committee meeting that will live in infamy, and perhaps in history. The RNC’s decision Friday to rebrand deadly mob violence at the U.S. Capitol as “legitimate political discourse” and censure two GOP House members investigating the attack has exposed a party so divided against itself that, as Abraham Lincoln told his fellow Republicans in 1858, it cannot stand.

Back then he presented the existential choice as preserving slavery or preserving the Union. Today, the choice is between preserving Trumpism or preserving the Republican Party.

There is increasing evidence that they cannot co-exist. The resolution adopted by the RNC in Salt Lake City has unleashed a torrent of protest from Republicans and former Republicans including, as of Tuesday, sharp comments from Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell.

They want to move on – from lies, from 2020, from Donald Trump.

‘Condoning conspiracies, lies, violence’

They can read the polls. Most Republicans say they have a favorable view of Trump, but nationally overall, he scored a 42% favorable in one recent poll and high 20s in two others. A new Associated Press poll found that 44% of Republicans don’t want him to run for president in 2024. And 56% of Republicans in a recent NBC News poll said they are more a supporter of their party than of Trump. Only 36% said the reverse.

More than 140 Republican leaders and ex-officials from the bipartisan Renew America Movement denounced the RNC on Monday for censuring Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, “condemning two principled elected leaders while condoning conspiracies, lies, and violent insurrection.”

The list of signers is eclectic – Never Trumpers and no-longer Trumpers, conservatives and moderates, strategists and onetime public servants, former senators and House members, and former Govs. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Christie Todd Whitman of New Jersey and William Weld of Massachusetts.

“How could we be here, where what is the obvious truth by any measure is being conveyed as non-truth by a governing body of a major political party?” Sanford wondered. The censure of Cheney and Kinzinger, he told me in an interview, is like “something out of George Orwell or a really bad sci-fi movie.”

GOP dissent over censure mounts

Chris Christie, another former governor, declared flatly on ABC News’ This Week: “January 6th was a riot that was incited by Donald Trump in an effort to intimidate Mike Pence and the Congress into doing exactly what he said in his own words last week, overturn the election.”

The RNC won congratulations from Trump for censuring the two Jan. 6 renegades on a voice vote. But there were dissidents at that meeting from several states. There were dissidents on Twitter. And there were dissidents on Capitol Hill, notably McConnell and Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee.

It is not the RNC’s job to single out Republican lawmakers who hold minority views, McConnell said, and he reiterated that Jan. 6 was “a violent insurrection” – not legitimate political discourse. Romney was particularly harsh given that the RNC is chaired by his niece. “Shame falls on a party that would censure persons of conscience, who seek truth in the face of vitriol,” he tweeted.

In “Two Roads Diverged,” a book Sanford published last summer, the former South Carolina governor and House member said he’ll never understand how he could have been elected to Congress in 2013, 2014 and 2016 after a sensational extramarital affair, yet go on to lose his 2018 GOP primary for “not bowing to Trump.”

In addition to tracing his personal mistakes, Sanford – who mounted a brief primary challenge to Trump in 2019 – suggests ways to mend his party. Republicans, he writes, should reembrace truth, reason, science, math and accountability, get serious about term limits, rediscover humility, recognize the value of diversity, and trade hypocrisy for consistency.

Trump electoral wreckage is coming

The unanswered question is how Republicans get from here to there, or if that’s even possible. The party is “in the process of self-igniting and I don’t know what the wreckage will look like,” Sanford said.

He was encouraged Monday when a real estate broker in his 70s, a lifelong Republican voter and an active party donor, told him: “I don’t care who is on the ballot, I’m voting for anybody but Trump.” But the next day, Tuesday, the same Trump ally who defeated Sanford four years ago jumped into a primary race against GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, who was critical of Trump after the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

“She sold out President Trump,” Katie Arrington says in her announcement video. “In Congress, I’ll be a proud pro-Trump conservative.”

More from Jill Lawrence: A Black woman on the Supreme Court can’t fix Democrats’ problems, but America needs her

Rejection by voters – call it electoral wreckage – might be the only path out of Trump cultism. Maybe Arrington will lose this primary to Mace or, as in 2018, she’ll win it then lose to a Democrat. Maybe Trump will run for president in 2024 and lose the GOP primary, or maybe he’ll win it and then, as in 2020, lose the White House. Maybe he will, as Sanford fears, claim again that the election was stolen – and even more Americans will come to believe the dangerous idea that “elections are no longer real.”

Or, thanks to the RNC’s stunning obtuseness, we can hope for a tipping point. More and more Republicans and conservatives are fed up. Trump’s claims to have won Arizona are “an outright lie,” Fox News host Brian Kilmeade said Monday on his radio show.

I am confident that he spoke for millions across the political spectrum when he told Trump to stop wasting people’s time because “nobody cares about 2020.”

Amen.

Jill Lawrence is a columnist for USA TODAY and author of “The Art of the Political Deal: How Congress Beat the Odds and Broke Through Gridlock.”

The Week

Appointments and interpretation won’t fix the Supreme Court

Samuel Goldman, National correspondent – February 9, 2022

It’s a busy season for the Supreme Court. The justices are now deep into an annual docket that includes major cases on abortion, religious education, gun rights, state secrets, and unintentional discrimination — and just this week, a preliminary ruling on congressional redistricting. With the pending retirement of Stephen Breyer, they also face a looming confirmation battle. Through it all, there’s a backbeat of criticism from progressives who fear the court’s slant to the right since the Trump Administration.

These conditions don’t quite add up to a crisis. Even so, the pressure is rising in judicial politics. That’s a headache for Chief Justice Roberts, who’s tried to keep the court above the political fray. But it’s also an opportunity for the rest of us to confront recurring paradoxes that seem inextricable from the court’s very design.

The first issue involves representation. In other words: who serves on the Supreme Court and why. In January, President Biden provoked a minor controversy when he announced that he would make good a campaign promise and appoint a Black woman to replace Breyer. Critics argue that means sacrificing merit to demography. “The irony is the Supreme Court, at the very same time, is hearing cases about this sort of affirmative racial discrimination and while adding someone who is the beneficiary of this sort of quota,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) told a Mississippi radio show.

The trouble with Wicker’s argument is that party loyalty, coalition management, and symbolism have always been part of the selection process. With so few seats on the court and so many plausible nominees, it’s inevitable that presidents will choose nominees who promote their political interests, including satisfying important constituencies. Democrats who defend Biden’s announcement emphasize Ronald Reagan’s campaign pledge that he would appoint the first woman to the court. But there are older precedents, including informal commitments to maintaining a “Jewish seat” and a “Catholic seat” in the 20th century and a preference for geographic balance in the 19th century.

This kind of selection doesn’t necessarily lead to great judges. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson maneuvered Arthur Goldberg out of the “Jewish seat” in order to replace him with Abe Fortas. A career Democratic operative and Johnson crony, Fortas maintained unusually close relations with his patron in the White House. Although Fortas’ friendship with the president was tolerated when he was just one of nine judges, it became controversial when Johnson unsuccessfully attempted to elevate him to chief justice. Fortas was later forced to resign altogether due to financial improprieties.

The reaction against the politicization and cronyism represented by Fortas encouraged a rival vision of Supreme Court justices as academically-trained technocrats. Few judges represented that vision better than Breyer, who clerked for Goldberg before proceeding through the Justice Department, Harvard Law School, and the U.S. Court of Appeals. A former member of the Watergate special prosecutor’s task force and protegée of Sen. Ted Kennedy, Breyer couldn’t be regarded as entirely non-partisan. Still, his 1994 nomination to the Supreme Court was approved by a Senate vote of 87-9 — a level of unanimity that’s almost unimaginable now but Breyer shared with most contemporary nominees.

But that degree of legislative consensus was premised on an expectation of judicial consensus. You can’t expect agreement on Supreme nominations when so much rides on their outcomes. Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were exceptions to the relative harmony of late 20th century nominations because they challenged the ideal of anodyne competence. Both believed the Constitution had been wrongly interpreted for decades — or possibly centuries. And they aimed to set things right.

But the rise of originalist jurisprudence is a consequence rather than a cause of the second paradox of the Supreme Court. Even if it has de facto representative features, the Court is not supposed to be a legislative body. Instead, it wields veto power over actions by other institutions of government.

But what distinguishes the exercise of that power from arbitrary interference? And when does preventing unconstitutional uses of government power cross the line into undemocratic manipulation? For conservatives, the ostensible modesty and elegant jurisprudential technique prized by Breyer was a way of retrospectively legitimizing earlier generations of judicial partisans and activists, who showed no such restraint about promoting liberal goals.

Reliance on the original meaning of the Constitution is supposed to counteract such tendencies without relying on the personal or ideological preferences of the court’s lineup at any given time. The difficulty is that it’s not so easy to determine what the Constitution meant, to whom, or at what specific historical moment. For some conservatives, moreover, the appeal of originalism always had as much to do with its anticipated results than with the promise of an ideologically-neutral method.

Last week, Harvard Law professor Adrian Vermeule intervened in this simmering debate with a challenging essay in The New York Times. Arguing that the currently dominant schools of jurisprudence are intellectually and politically bankrupt, he proposes an alternative approach. Progressives assume the constant, leftward evolution of morality while conservatives appeal to a dubious historical consensus, Vermeule argues. Instead, judges should try to rule in ways that promote a shared understanding of the common good including “stable families, material security, dignified work and a sense of social harmony.”

Although it’s less incendiary than previous statements of his position (you have to click through the links to get the full picture), it’s hard to believe that the adoption of Vermeule’s strategy would reduce the partisanship and polarization of the court that he, too, laments. One reason is that he defines the common good so generally as to avoid serious disagreements about definitions, priorities, and the correct means to given ends. Vermeule contends that constitutional language like “due process of law” and “free speech” is too vague to guide judicial decisions. But it’s hard to understand how “dignified work” or “a sense of social harmony” is any better.

That’s not a reason to dismiss such concepts as irrelevant or incoherent. The fundamental problem is that Vermeule’s argument, like the alternatives it rejects, counts on constitutional interpretation to resolve political disputes. We can and should expect elected legislators and executives to express and promote their preferred conceptions of the common good. That’s because we have the freedom to vote for or against them, depending on whether we agree. The combination of presidential appointment, life tenure, and a final say on legislation, by contrast, makes that influence attenuated, at best.

The reason the Supreme Court faces increasing challenges to its legitimacy isn’t that either it’s composed of the wrong personnel or that the justices have adopted the wrong interpretive strategies. It’s that they’ve acquired a degree of influence over basic questions of law and policy that cannot be held immune from electoral and ideological considerations.

If we want appointments and decisions to be less controversial, we’d need to reduce the court’s power. But that requires looking beyond the criteria for nomination or meaning of the constitutional text and considering the more basic questions about the meaning of self-government.