I don't know how close we came last year, after the joy of 1/5 when we found out that the Democrats had control of the Senate with two wins in Georgia run-off elections. It was bad regardless.
It was a type of insurrection attempt and the third section of the 14A should be applied, including with a pending enforcement bill provided a framework. Reform of the Election Act is fine too. Of course, it is not enough, and Republican support NOW while voting rights is pending is probably not in good faith. Long term, it is a good idea. And, 10 senators probably can get around it.
We are talking about a range here. Is "America over"? I'm somewhat troubled by the framing there. What is America? A hundred years ago, women got the right to vote. Black women and probably poor women and other types of women still had a lot of problems exercising that right to vote. That was America. One where a fraction of society governed.
We should look at the big picture here. The insurrection was the tip of a wider iceberg. The second impeachment trial was excellent in part because it showed that incitement was shown by long practice. A NYT commentary discusses the ten Republicans who voted to impeach in the House. Not doing well. The Big Lie is basically a loyalty oath.
An op-ed talks about how Christian nationalism (good use of qualifier; it isn't "religion" or "Christians" alone) helps. Our basic constitutional system helps. Biden won by seven million votes, but moving around under 50K could have meant Trump. That is simply insane (as well as scary).
Attorney General Garland, who I support, gave a good speech yesterday on 1/6 and the ongoing investigation. He resisted instant gratification. But, he put down a basic marker (as well as providing useful information on how they are operating, including prosecution policy as to punishment) that long term will be a test that we can judge him:
“The Justice Department remains committed to holding all Jan 6 perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law, whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy. We will follow the facts wherever they lead.”
It leads to big people, including Trump. I will be dubious of prosecution of Trump (put aside the value and correct path), but that is where the facts lead. Some loud types, including retweeted by the likes of Malcolm "am I macho sounding enough now" Nance, are calling him a loser. How long did Watergate (occurred before 1972 election; Nixon left mid-1974) take?
And, Sally Yates as savior? Fun times -- Obama is lame for nominating Garland to the Supreme Court (yeah, they still are on that), but his assistant attorney general would be significantly more left-y than Garland. Garland said the right things, including talking about violence and the importance of voting rights (made harder with Shelby v. Holder).
It is too soon to judge Garland though I really want to like the guy. He speaks from his heart, seeing the job as a duty (his family were refugees to this country). He had the principles down and served his career honoring institutions. You can complain about details (I wish, for one, they commuted/pardoned some people the first year), but overall, it is way to soon to talk about failure. Pressure? Sure. It's part of the deal.
President Biden and VP Harris early in the morning (really, Joe ... I do my laundry at around eight and he is giving remarks at 9AM before I'm done) gave some bipartisan (I'm sorry ... support of 1/6 memorials is now apparently partisan too though on 1/6, credit where due, Republican senators as a whole did their jobs as republicans ... with eight or so exceptions) remarks. And, yes, voting rights is key here.
[The TPM analysis notes Sen. Ted Cruz gave remarks calling out the 1/6 insurrection as a "violent terrorist attack.” It's hard to do so at some point, but things like that are worthy of credit. Of course, Cruz cannot be totally consistent, like when he supported Trump once it was clear he was the nominee. Cruz as a whole aids and abets democracy breakdown by his lies and trolling. But, yes, okay. Lines have to be drawn sometime.]
How can Democrats specifically not support them? Democrats are in power in the Senate, allowing basic things (including the Biden Administration being able to have basic people confirmed, though as asinine number of people are not -- there should be a default confirmation rule after some period) to happen, because of Georgia. Where voting rights are in danger. Because of black people. Well you know. Come the FUCK on people! Come on.
And, yes, Republicans have agency here. Any so-called "moderate" like the one person (Lisa M.) supporting one voting rights bill (lose track if it is the one crafted to please Manchin .. damn radical) has to be asked why they oppose democracy. Graveyard Mitch lies about no state likely to vote against the popular vote winner when multiple state legislatures are Big Lie curious. Will the frame be that they "really" aren't doing so?
Biden in his remarks notes 1/6 is a warning of the risky state of our democracy. Meanwhile, for whatever reason, Trump cancelled an in person event and ranted in written remarks. Sure. The bottom line there for me is that he still is the presumptive candidate for 2024. A Republican Party willing to accept him as one is not fit to be deemed legitimate.
I was told that such lines are not official. Surely. When did it become accepted that smoking in public places was sort of disgusting? When did it become as a matter of social graces no longer respectable to shun gays or even trans people (we are a long way from the end here, of course)? Not as a matter of legal rules specifically. As a matter of social norms?
But, if the Big Lie is going to be the rule of one party, it is akin to supporting a Mussolini Party or something. We have to, and not just Democrats, unite against accepting that. We can't simply assume the Big Lie Party will win in November and yawn about it as normal mid-term stuff. A supermajority of House Republicans challenged electoral votes based on the Big Lie after the insurrection.
How can we blithely accept them in control NEXT January 6th?
ETA: One person who might be a Never Trumper (he has come out as a "conservative" and opposed the second impeachment [and had a bad take high standard of proof in the first one], for various bad reasons) has focused on the 14A, sec. 3 remedy.
His writings on the question (he also wrote about 14A, sec. 2, including thinking Congress has a duty to enforce the penalty) include what "insurrection" means. Helpful. And, that is in fact pretty strong for him.
The provision has received little notice and that is unfortunate. The provision applies to people other than Trump and very well can be applicable in elections and other government service issues.
RIGHT NOW.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!