CPAC and the USA

 

The Conservative Political Action Conference held its annual gathering at The National Harbor site just outside of Washington DC this week. And, as usual, it gathered lots of "fringy right-wingers". However, this year there were even more odd folks than before as Christian Nationalists, anti-democracy groups, white nationalists, and even Nazis mingled among the crowds. They targeted the younger attendees, and according to some at NBC News, found a ready audience for their conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic views. Seen also were followers who attended the Unite the Right Rally and other White supremacist protests. A self-defined conservative and conspiracy theorist who spoke at a panel moderated by Steve Bannon also called for the end of democracy. The person, Jack Posbeic, called for democracy to be replaced by a cross, then later claimed he was just being sarcastic. Watch what "they say" and what "they do."

Then, of course, some spoke before the convention as they auditioned for the spot of Vice-President should DJT become the party's nominee for president; (for many a foregone conclusion). The convention even held a straw poll to allow attendees to note their favorites. This poll ended in a tie with 15% of those voting choosing Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota and 15% choosing Vivek Ramaswamy. Former Democratic congressional representative (and former presidential candidate) Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii came in third with 9% followed by NY congressional representative Elise Stefanik with 8% (sorry, Elise, looks as if you sold out for nothing here-and that dress was ugly!). Two African American maybes, Senator Tim Scott of SC, and Byron Daniels of Florida, came in with 8 and 7% respectively. Senator Scott, was the humiliation worth the chance? Former candidate for governor, Kari Lake of Arizona, who had not spoken when the poll was posted, was not listed. Senator J.D. Vance, who has also been vying for the position, apparently has not made the cut yet. J.D., after your recent comments about the Constitution and the Court, you so don't belong there!   

As reported in the Guardian  "Do I think there were problems in 2020? Yes, I do," Vance told ABC News's George Stephanopoulos, adding it was "ridiculous" to ask if he would have certified the results as Mike Pence had done and told the host he was "obsessed with talking about this". In a contentious interview, the senator also suggested that Trump should ignore "illegitimate" US Supreme Court rulings.

That remark came after Vance was questioned about a 2021 podcast during which he said he would advise Trump to "fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people" and ignore legal rulings against it.

"We have a major problem here with administrators and bureaucrats in the government who don't respond to the elected branches ... If those people aren't following the rules, then of course you've got to fire them, and of course, the president has to be able to run the government as he thinks he should," Vance said.

"The constitution says that the Supreme Court can make rulings ... but if the Supreme Court said the President of the United States can't fire a general, that would be an illegitimate ruling," added Vance, whose wife, Usha Chilukuri Vance, has previously clerked for John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh, the supreme court justices."

It seems that the Senator from Ohio does not believe in our system of separate branches of government with checks and balances.

It is also true that the former president does not believe in them either, as his speeches frequently talk of getting retribution against any who thwarted his plans when he was in office. He speaks frequently about remaking the civil service subject to presidential whims. In remarks to the National Religious Broadcasters International Media Conference recently, DJT equated the left with communist and fascist forces who would come and take away your churches, tear down your crosses, and replace them with social justice flags.

And, as reported by PBS: "Remember, every communist regime throughout history has tried to stamp out the churches, just like every fascist regime has tried to co-opt them and control them," Trump told hundreds of cheering attendees at the National Religious Broadcasters International Christian Media Convention in Nashville. "And, in America, the radical left is trying to do both."

The Christian media gathering, where sponsors distributed free red and white baseball caps emblazoned with "Make America Pray Again," was exceedingly friendly territory for the former president, whose address often felt more like a rally than a staid convention speech.

"The left is trying to shame Christians," Trump said. "They're trying to shame us. I'm a very proud Christian."

"When he came onto the scene, people were skeptical," said Troy Miller, president, and CEO of the National Religious Broadcasters. "But I think, as they've learned more and listened to Donald Trump speak, the one thing I hear all the time from people … is that they really feel like Donald Trump understands them and that's the biggest connection that people make is, 'This is a guy in politics who gets us, who understands us, who doesn't talk like he's an elitist and talk down to us.'"

The former president won the SC primary yesterday with approximately 60% of the vote to opponent Nikki Haley's 40%. This does not seem like a strong showing in a very red state for someone who pretends he won the election in 2020. In his rambling acceptance speech, where he again spoke about the hordes of immigrants coming from mental institutions and jails as they cross the border, he noted he wanted the race to be over. (He also forgot the name of the SC governor, forgot to mention one of his sons when naming family members, lied about "his victory" in 2020, and lied about being endorsed by the UAW – which already endorsed Biden). He tried to secure control of the Republican National Committee, (after urging chair Ronna McDaniel's out) naming his choices to run the party, including his daughter-in-law, and bringing back Kellyanne Conway. The Party, which he described as unified, is not sure on this motion.

The draft resolution, in part, states: "The Republican National Committee and its leadership will stay neutral throughout the Presidential primary and not take on additional staff from any of the active Presidential campaigns until a nominee is clearly determined by reaching 1,215 delegates."

A second resolution also prohibits the party from paying his legal fees. Members in the down-ballot races looked at fundraising gaps and showed concern about competing in November.

The Economist noted this week that the left had better get busy and counter such movements and messages as shown above. Europe is extremely concerned after recent anti-NATO and pro-Putin remarks made by DJT. While some point out that primary voters are the base of committed followers, the general election will not have the same makeup and will be a more diverse electorate, others are concerned that parts of his divisive messages are getting through to the voters who do not think America is working for them.

The Democratic Party cannot afford to lose votes or become complacent. I agree his campaign is unhinged and his messages are divisive, but I only have one vote. Democrats need to do a better job of reaching out to the younger voters, to disaffected communities such as Muslims and communities of color. Policies have been changed, and unemployment is low, as is inflation, but we aren't all the way there yet in the larger scheme of things. The resolution of border issues and the war in Gaza are two large hurdles for the president at this time. Biden needs to publicize that DJT killed the border legislation that was in the planning for months. He also needs to publicize the tuition forgiveness promises he made were turned down by petitions from Republican States, and loan businesses and eventually denied by the Trump Supreme Court.

I don't know what will happen, but Congress has to return and pass the spending bills or shut down soon. House Speaker Johnson sent everyone home rather than deal with the package negotiated by the Senate. Of course, should he try to resolve issues such as funding for Ukraine and elsewhere, and pass a budget, he might lose his seat. Country over party should be your mantra, Speaker Johnson.

"Til next week-Peace!

Truth-tellers and Liars

This weekend we celebrate Presidents' Day and remember two of our greatest presidents. One, President Abraham Lincoln, helped preserve the union and steered us through the Civil War. The other president, George Washington, our first president, is considered the Father of our country. Already famous as the General who pulled the country victoriously through the Revolutionary War, he was a simple choice to be the first president, once we had established a country with a Constitutional government.

After serving two terms, he announced he would not seek a further term. There were many calls for him to stay, but he chose to step down because he wanted this fragile country to follow the guidelines established by the founders. They wanted a more representative government and that could not be in place if the voters did not elect new leaders, as he saw it. England had a king who ruled for life; that was not what this new government wanted to have in place. Washington knew he had to be firm in his decision and push the country toward a democratic succession made by the voters. In his quest to nudge the country toward democracy and reinforce the Constitution, he considered the needs of the citizens, and the rules that were now in place, over any personal needs or ambitions, unlike many politicians today. After decades of service, he was ready to retire to his Virginia home in Mount Vernon.

Washington gave what we now refer to as a Farewell Address as he stepped down. It is described here by the National Constitutional Center. In 1796, he gave some warnings to his countrymen about relationships. In these remarks, he set the stage for future events and established a precedent for the peaceful transfer of power. Washington set forth three major themes. He warned against political factionalism as he saw areas of his country eager to set off against another in considerations of commerce, finances, and slaveholding.. He encouraged a push toward national unity and efforts to find common responses to shared problems. He also warned against threats from internal and foreign forces; those who would seek to disrupt this fragile union. The president, upon leaving office, showed his vision as he spoke out against the United States getting involved in foreign entanglements. Consequently, he encouraged neutrality and diplomacy in foreign affairs. This was over 228 years ago. Many of these remarks ring true now, centuries later.

Washington recognized the need for the country to grow, become stronger, and find strength in a common purpose. Unity between states would lengthen the roots for the national body to survive, he thought. Saying "To the efficacy and permanency of your union, a government for the whole is indispensable."

He also wanted to reinforce the nascent Rule of Law, then tenuously in place. He set forth cautious guidelines in financial affairs, warned against factious political parties, and encouraged education generally, and in public affairs. Since there were no national communication means, this address was not a formal speech but an essay and newspapers initially printed this Farewell Address. The first paper to print it was the Philadelphia Daily American Advertiser, and it was then shared with other newspapers across the country.

Apocryphally, Washington was known for his truth-telling as a young man; he finished his governmental career with the same theme. He might then have loudly decried some of the political ads we see today that skirt the truth and rely on lies and innuendo. How different this is from would-be leaders today who care little about the truth and appear to relish the lies they tell with apparent impunity. Our first president, in his warnings against factionalism, may have realized that centuries later we would have red states and blue states, conservatives vs. progressives, and authoritarians against those who support democracy.

Over the centuries, we have had good presidents and bad presidents, and threats to our union and our nation, but we have survived as a country. Some now are wondering if the schisms being encouraged by the right-wing, pseudo-patriots and foreign bad actors might break through our national unity, as tattered as it is today. How different might the elections of 2016 and 2020 have been without the interference of Russia, Iran, or China?

While we cannot undo what others have done to unravel our democracy, we are forewarned now and can put in place roadblocks to autocrats, dictators, and the like. Voters can speak up and speak out, sharing information with their neighbors. And most importantly, voters need to vote. As a country, the percentage of voters is usually low, even in national elections. Many residents (about 21% in 2017, according to Pew Research) are not even registered to vote. This needs to change and there is a simple remedy. Many of these voters say voting is a hassle, they don't like politics; they don't have time, etc. But, at least in states such as MD with no-fault absentee voting, one can sign up, receive a ballot, and vote from their home. Their ballot can be mailed in or dropped in a county ballot collection box. In 2020, according to electproject.org/202g, approximately 160 million people voted in the 2020 general election from among a population at that time of around 320 million. Others note that the elections of 2018, 2020, and 2022 have been among the three highest percentage turn-outs in history, so perhaps the negative trends are turning. I guess we shall see.

In other news, long-time Putin critic, Russian Alexei Navalny, died suddenly this week at his Arctic prison camp. Some think Putin now believes he no longer has to be concerned about international opinion and can continue to kill his opposition without restraint. Others believe the Republican Party and its presidential candidate are enabling these moves. Time will tell.

Til next week-Peace.

Courts, Ballots, Immunity!

This week the Federal Appeals Court three-judge panel finally released their ruling on the request of the former president to claim immunity from prosecution for any of his actions during the insurrection.

The ruling was lengthy but clear. The actions taken on January 6 were not in keeping with his presidential duties and he, as Citizen Trump, was not entitled to any more rights than any other criminal defendant.

The decision further said, as noted by the New York Times:

“At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches,” they wrote. “Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the president, the Congress could not legislate, the executive could not prosecute and the judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”

After further discussion, the judges conclude in a unanimous unsigned decision:

“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”

The opinion would send the case being appealed back to the DC Court of Judge Tanya Chutkin to proceed to trial unless further appealed. The defendant was given until February 12^th to ask for the Supreme Court to step in and rule on this finding. Many legal minds discussed this ruling, and have concluded that this opinion is so well argued and final in its conclusions that the judges on the Supreme Court would have no case law to change or decision to edit and would likely leave it as stated, negating any decision on appeal.

George Conway, writing in The Atlantic, noted:

“In engaging in that analysis, the appeals court did something very important, from the standpoint both of bolstering its conclusion and of insulating its decision from Supreme Court review. The panel, as smart judges do, limited its analysis to the specific “case before us, in which a former President has been indicted on federal criminal charges arising from his alleged conspiracy to overturn federal election results and unlawfully overstay his Presidential term” (emphasis mine).

And so, the balancing question became: Does the nation’s interest in protecting democracy outweigh the danger that potential post-presidency prosecution might deter presidents from doing their job? When posed that way, the question admitted of only one possible answer: yes—by a country mile.:”

The public will soon learn whether the Supreme Court will take this appeal under advisement or decline to review the decision. I certainly hope that SCOTUS will affirm the appeals court decision and allow the criminal case to proceed apace.

The other major court case in town this week was the petition to keep anyone off the ballot who had engaged in insurrection as mentioned in the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution. The states of Colorado and Maine, responding to voter complaints, each petitioned the Court to rule on the continued eligibility of the former president to appear on the ballot.        

Radio stations broadcast the hearings as the Supreme Court does not allow televised proceedings. That morning, the curious public lined up outside the Court hoping to be allowed to snag the few seats in the court allotted to them as interest in this topic was quite high. I feel DJT should never hold public office again and applaud the intention of the petitioners. However, I also believe that his personality is so unstable, that were he denied a place on the ballot, he could call out the fury of his small group of irrational conspiracy-minded followers who would again heed his bidding. While Constitutional questions such as these need to be decided, congressional legislation may be the best way to go. However, with Congress, as messed up as it has been recently, I doubt that such serious legislation would be possible.

Several Justices questioned the reasoning from the states and some wondered if this scenario could lead to blue states acting one way and red states another, resulting in serious confusion as to who qualified to appear on said ballots. Defenders of the ballot changes stressed the unique quality of the charge of insurrection and its rarity, while the justices looked toward the question of riots vs. insurrection and officer vs. presidential office. In the end, it appears that the cases were defended one way and heard in an entirely different mode by the Court. Several commentators noted this week that the Justices may even rule 9-0 against this petition. Several lawyers guessed the Justices were looking for an off-ramp, a loophole, or anything that could allow them to not favor this ballot change. Others have posited that if they ruled for the former president in this instance, they could they could then support the ruling of the appeals court, and maybe be less criticized as partisan. (One from column A and one from column B perhaps?)

Ruth Marcus, writing in the Washington Post, believes the Justices should hear the appeal, even as she thinks it will not be supported.

“The justices are going to be understandably leery of doing anything that looks like they are putting a thumb on the scale for, or against, Trump. But the unavoidable reality is that whatever course they choose has political reverberations. A decision to treat the case as if the calendar doesn’t matter carries political consequences as well.

We’re in uncharted territory here, with the likely GOP nominee facing an array of criminal charges. It is in the public interest for that liability, or as much of it as possible, to be determined before the election. If Trump is acquitted, so be it. If he is convicted, that might affect some voters’ choices, but it would not disqualify him from being elected or serving. Don’t the voters have a right to know if they are choosing a felon?”

 

For many, the Court is already at a questionable standing regarding its impartiality or inability to review cases based on law without a heavy finger on that supposedly fair scale of justice. Writing in Vanity Fair, Attorney Christian Farias of Inquest states “he has marveled at how much of his legal training has been rendered irrelevant by Chief Justice Roberts.” Not only does he fault the Justice for not adequately considering the swirling ethics questions, gifts, and trips, but he chides him for hiding behind judicial independence in his refusal to answer questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee. And, his article concludes, that in a city running on political capital, the court may be, by coming to unpopular conclusions on matters central to our democracy, running on empty.

We should have more clarity tomorrow when we find out if an appeal will be filed and, if so, if it will be accepted.

I seriously hope that speedy justice is served, and a criminal trial will take place soon. This man has avoided accountability his entire life, and I am so pleased to see that some delays he put in place are eroding.

News note: That is all for tonight. There are reports that Israel will bomb Rafah, the last safe haven for civilians in Gaza. The leaders have been warned to not do this by the US and many other countries. From what I can determine, there is no justification for these raids, and they should cease.

Till next week – hope for peace.

Whacky Week!

The news has been a little weird this week.

Down in Texas, there is a kerfuffle of sorts as Texas Governor Abbott wants to show his muscle and stand up to the Federal Government over his defense of the border. He ordered his National Guard to place razor wire along the border in an area called Eagle Pass. The Federal government sought an emergency ruling from the Supreme Court regarding the illegality of these actions and the rights of the border guards to remove the wires, as migrants were getting injured while trying to avoid this barrier. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court allowed the Birder Agents to continue to cut the wire along the area in question. The agents were stopped previously by an order of a lower court. However, the Texas Governor ignored the Court's order and claimed he had to protect the border, as that is his duty as governor. This ignores the fact that border protection is a federal function, not one allowed to a state. Saying otherwise does not make it so.

So, now a group of Republican Governors have joined in this controversy and some have even sent state National Guard troops to the Eagle Pass area. The groups appear to want a confrontation with the Federal government. Then a bunch of MAGA hangers-on joined in and traveled to the nearest town, accompanied by Christian Nationalists who set up revival meetings and baptisms. In the meantime, truckers said they would start convoys in solidarity heading to Texas from multiple points across the country. Despite claims of thousands headed in that direction, news reports noted groups of under 100 in observed convoys. As these events were unfolding, protests against Abbott's actions also greeted arrivals.

Does this sound like a three-ring circus or what? Some concerns were voiced about the potential for violence in such a diverse group, but organizers said they were looking out for trouble and were allowing no known trouble-makers, permitting attendees to only carry sidearms and no long guns. Why am I not reassured?

Eugene Robinson, writing in the Washington Post, reminded Abbott and others that federal confrontations with governors did not go well during the Civil Rights era.

After noting: "In a jaw-dropping statement last week, Abbott echoed the secessionist rhetoric of the Confederacy. He claimed that the federal government "has broken the compact between the United States and the States and that, therefore, Texas has "the right of self-defense. …..Border security is a matter for Congress, the president, and the federal courts to decide and enforce — not for grandstanding governors such as Abbott."

Robinson noted the defiance of Governors Faubus of Arkansas and Wallace of Alabama during the Civil Rights era and when both governors defied Court Orders, both Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy federalized the state National Guard and enforced the orders of the courts that allowed black students to enter educational institutions.

"Biden surely does not relish going so far as to federalize the Texas National Guard, seizing command from Abbott. But Eisenhower and Kennedy did not want to take that step, either. They tried hard to persuade Faubus and Wallace to obey the Supreme Court, and when the governors refused to comply, the presidents did what they saw as their duty."

Robinson concludes his remarks with these thoughts:

"If they are truly interested in securing the border, Abbott and the other Republican governors should become part of the solution. By tossing around rhetoric that sounds more like Jefferson Davis than Thomas Jefferson, they make themselves part of the problem.

 

We get it: They don't like Biden, and they want to weaken him politically as he runs for reelection. But Biden has the duty, and the power, to defend the Constitution. I hope foolish political machinations by Abbott and others do not force Biden to act."

 

I think we all hope wiser heads will ultimately prevail and that the harmful razor wire will be removed as ordered by the court. But, given the desire of the Republicans, as stated by Senator Chuck Grassley, to refuse to solve problems that might give a win to President Biden, hoping for some standing down at Eagle Pass might be too far a road to follow.

 

Some other news to note:

President Biden won the Democratic primary in South Carolina with 96.2% of the total votes cast. His 126,321 votes there and in the write-ins for NH (79,455) were more than expected since he did not campaign in NH and seems to belie the claims that Democrats are staying home this year. However, the turnout was lower than in 2020 when there were multiple candidates still in the race.

 

The economy added over 300,000 jobs last month, higher than expected. Inflation is down and the Stock Market hit record highs. So, of course, the former president claimed the Market went up as investors seeing his win in Iowa were excited about his prospects of returning to the Oval Office. Really? That is so much spin, it is a wonder his head is still attached!

 

Some Republicans in the House refused to allow funding for the summer lunch programs to be offered to those who receive free lunches during the school year. One Republican governor even quipped something to the effect that since we have too much childhood obesity, maybe going without lunches might help. Of course, she appears ignorant of the fact that poor people eat lots of carbs since proteins such as meat are costlier. Could someone with saner views step up and speak out?

 

On that sad note, I'll just say goodnight!

 

Til next week- peace!