Tag Archives: House of Representatives

executions, impeachment, Geraldo, kemp, Republican attorneys general

  • The federal government has executed the first woman in almost 70 years.  The woman had a history of mental illness and sexual abuse and sex trafficking in her childhood.  The ACLU had appealed to the federal government to halt scheduled executions.
  • Liz Cheney has said yes to impeachment.
  • Trump, yesterday called for unity and calm while also threatening the nation and the President-Elect.
  • Kevin McCarthy is saying that Trump shouldn’t be impeached.
  • Geraldo has joined the group of people trying to save what is left of their reputations repudiating Trump.  He also advanced a line used by Toomy used, saying that losing the election made Trump crazy.  “After the election, he (Trump) took this to an entirely different place, orders of magnitude different,” Toomey said to NBC.
  • On the “trying to salvage what little is left of his reputation,” subject, Brian Kemp of Georgia is reviving an image he used in a former campaign saying he will drive around Georgia in his pick up truck to distribute vaccine.  For some reason, Kemp feels this casts him in a positive light.  Since he finds himself incapable of managing the state’s distribution network even though he is governor, he hopes to salvage his image by making people believe that delivering vaccine personally in a pick up truck is better.
  • Also in Georgia, a man charged in the capitol siege, Christopher Stanton, has committed suicide.  This is the second suicide reported among those involved in the insurrection.  A capitol hill police officer was also reported as having committed suicide.
  • Right-wing activist Ali Alexander (who has gone into hiding and raised $20,000 on a Christian crowdfunding site) says that Reps. Gosar and Biggs worked with him in planning the rally that led to the attack on the Capitol. 
  •  Rep Lauren Boebert has been arrested four times, including for resisting arrest.  She cheered the Capitol rioters and live-tweeted her colleagues’ locations.  Last night, she refused to go through a metal detector to get to the House floor.  Why she is adamant about taking a weapon into the House chamber nobody knows.
  • Rep. Mikie Sherrill has said that members of Congress gave tours to people through the Capitol on a “reconnaissance” mission one day before the riot.  She says that she is going to see that they are “held accountable, and if necessary ensure they don’t serve in Congress.”
  • The Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF), funded robocalls directing people to the rally in Washington, told them they would be marching to the Capitol and used the “Stop the Steal” rallying cry invented by Roger Stone.
  • The RLDF is closely associated with the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). 
  • Florida’s AG, Ashley Moody, was on the board of directors for the RLDF, the group that on the day of the Capitol attack sent out robocalls urging attendance.  After the attack, Moody’s office scrubbed references to the group (Tampa Bay Times).
  • RAGA donated more than $1million to Moody’s political committee in 2018. 
  • Moody has been prominent in the legal fight to overturn the 2020 election in favor of Trump.  She also after taking office, joined 14 other Republican state attorneys general in urging the federal government to drop its case against Michael Flynn. 
  • Alabama AG, Steve Marshall, blamed “staff” for the robocall that urged people to go to the Trump rally in Washington. 
  • The executive director of the RAGA resigned on Monday.
  • The website for March to Save America, the Trump rally, listed the RLDF as one of the participating organizations.  The graphic which listed the participating organizations has since been deleted (Atlanta Journal Constitution).
  • Diane Feinstein had filed the paperwork to run for reelection.

ESSENTIAL PODCAST: DECONSTRUCTED INTERVIEW WITH PROGRESSIVE MIKE SIEGEL

Essential Podcasts: Deconstructed (Episode 11/6/20)

Mike Siegel, progressive candidate for the House in Texas is interviewed by Deconstructed. The district Siegel ran in was drawn to be permanently Republican through gerrymandering.  

  • According to Siegel, the Democratic Party has a narrow range of issues it “recommends” their candidates run on.  The Party does the research, the polling, and tell the candidate what they should do.  If they receive any push back, it is possible for them to withdraw funds and ruin the campaign, so most candidates find themselves in a position to go along.
  • Party pollsters do the research and tell the candidate what the talking points are, what segment of the voting population the candidate should reach. 
  • Organizing with poor people is a long difficult process and it doesn’t appeal to the donor class.  As Siegal says, “We need to get out the non-voters.” 
  • The Party, Siegal says is “too invested in conservative donors”  These donors are “moderating the message” so that only an extremely narrow set of issues is ever talked about.  “They (the party operatives) are cynical about democracy…” 
  • Party consultants produce TV ads in a quick time frame.  Then, they come to the candidate and say: Give me this many dollars, we can run this may ads, we can expect this much shift in the polling.
  • The consultants tell the candidates: We made 2,000 calls, these are the issues that matter.  These are the issues you should stress.  These are the talking points.  As Siegel says,   “it’s relatively conservative.”
  • The consultants do their research and say your issue is, for example, health care, these are the talking points.
  • As Siegel says of the party consultants: “They completely narrow what they think you can accomplish.”
  • If the candidate disagrees or tries to change the messaging of the campaign, the consultants say: “That doesn’t poll quite as well as health care.”
  • “At every point they (the consultants) push back against you.”
  • As Siegel points out, there are not pollsters and consultants who work with a populist message.  There are no people you can hire who know how to run what Siegel calls a “left campaign.” 
  • The framework, according to Siegel, is how can you raise and spend x dollars and change vote this much. 
  • Siegel challenged one of the wealthiest members of congress, and had a lot of progressive support, but came up short.  
  • Siegel says: “We need to do deep organizing.”

But, the take-away from the interview is that the Democratic Party, their donors and their elite consultants have no interest in “deep organizing.”  Deep organizing takes time and money and an actual interest in the problems of working and lower class people.  It involves demonstrating to people who have seen politicians come and go and their lives not change, that politics is important to them.  The issue is demonstrating this, not just telling them.

Another problem is that the Democratic party is a party obsessed with technocratic solutions.  One of the points that screams out from this interview with Siegel is that pollsters are dominating party strategy.  These are the same pollsters who (based on their scientific models) predicted landslides in 2016 and 2020.  Either their technology was wrong, or Republicans are systematically stealing elections through electronic voting manipulation.  There are no other options.  But, electronic voting manipulation is an issue that Democrats consistently refuse to talk about.  In fact, just raising the issue provokes angry denials and even more angry accusations about the motivations of people who talk about the issue.  It is the unspeakable topic.

The Party pollsters would rather point to their own failures in predicting the outcomes of the last two elections than admit that the vast difference between the poll numbers and the election results might be the product of cheating.  There is a very good reason for this.  If, in fact, Republicans are cheating, systematically, repeatedly then pollsters become irrelevant.  The last thing they want to be is irrelevant because they would then be out of business. 

So, the consultants and pollsters themselves acknowledge that their predictions have been wildly inaccurate, but they are still put in the position of essentially determining the way individual Democratic campaigns are run.  How does this make sense? 

You can follow me on Twitter @cjjohns1951