To Beat Trump and Win House and Senate 2023 Must be a Build Infrastructure Year
As Democrats, we spend far too much money and effort in the roller coaster, boom-and-bust cycle close to elections. And too much on prominent marquee campaigns while other efforts starve. Republicans have for years invested for the long term. We must so the same, and more so.
I see 4 major infrastructure arenas we should invest in, that starve and atrophy during the off-year. For Dem State Party support I see a strong best bet for support - SPAN. For the others there are many excellent opportunities and just providing some of my favorites.
1) State Democratic Parties - SPAN (State Party Advancement Network) is very well connected with state parties in key states. They leverage economies of scale by offering key technical support for multiple states.They take no money themselves, but are great at strategic direction and will advise you.
2) Anti MAGA Propaganda. Favorites: For hands-on where you can amplify key messages yourself - DemCast. For contributions to active, strategic messaging to key voters - Courier Newsroom
3) On-the-ground grassroots groups. There are probably hundreds across the country. Movement Voter Project does provide a good window on many, but to be most effective you should drill down to assess. The ones 31st Street Swing Left have selected are on our website. One organization that supports many and some other fine efforts is Rural Development Initiatives.
4) Voter Registration, especially youth. Again numerous active organizations. Favorites: Students Learn Students Vote, You Can Vote (NC Specific) and Civics Center. All 3 are (c)(3)s.
My reason for posting this is not particularly to push my favorites, but to encourage folks to invest in infrastructure.
We know Trump and his minions are such a huge threat. And investing now can make such a difference
I second your comment about strengthening state Democratic parties. We live in Washington State where we have had a full-time highly effective Chair for years. Among the results: we flipped the 3rd Congressional District seat in the last election and held onto another in a tough race.
But it didn't always look this way. In the past party leadership was lazy and the organization was underfunded.
What's the story in YOUR state? Sadly there are only a few stand-out state level Democratic organizations that are building a significant ground game over the years.
Wisconsin, where my wife and I do volunteer work on the ground and remotely is another state Democratic Party with outstanding leadership (Ben Wikler) and an effective organization.
For all the good work done by other national and regional organizations, there is no substitute for a well-funded, well-organized state Dem organization.
Make it your business to know whether you have one--and support them financially (like we do--for WA and WI).
Not sure the State Dems are not their own little, or big, fiefdoms. They too have not found effective ways to reach their own working class voters....and how do you not fix that? Also, I strongly disagree with their "frantic/furious/fuming/sobbing etc" approach to issues instead of the actual issue. Creating fear or anger in our own bases does not help anyone to think.... just how to react emotionally. I feel giving to voter registration groups, GOTV groups and gerrymander prevention groups fits my perspective better.
Points well taken Carole. I don't know what state you reside in. Depending on the situation and your own willingness to get involved in local party politics I wouldn't overlook the potential of the state Dems. We have been SO impressed with the effectiveness and intelligence of the WisDems. Would that every state had this kind of leadership.
Hi Mark. I agree there huge need out there, but actually wouldn't take that much compared to the mega millions that gets spent on races. Our current priority is supporting SPAN to support Dem State Parties in the key States of Arizona and Michigan, specifically for voter protection, which is one of the key areas of expertise SPAN provides across states. Some details on our 31st St Swing Left website: https://www.31ststreet.org/
James, this post is immensely helpful. And, of course, we must build infrastructure. For some time I have tried to figure out where best to spend my time and money. This is a very good beginning. Thank you!!!
Don’t need to do that. Need 51 Democrats willing to reform Senate rules to limit or eliminate the filibuster, then expand the court by majority vote—you know, like they do in democracies.
May 15, 2023·edited May 15, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Setting aside what would need to happen after a successful *1* vote Senate win on court reform, let's say that happens and the process plays out successfully. Got a way to make that bullet proof? What about the next time the GOP controls the Senate (and the rest of the process)? And that will happen at some point.
"Reform by 1 vote" implies "un-reform by 1 vote" just as possible. Something more durable than that probably needed if you don't want ping pong balls for justices.
Of course, actual ping pong balls would be preferable to a couple of the current sitting justices.
Hi, M. The objection that "Won't Republicans do the same thing" ensures that nothing will ever get done. Failing to act because Republicans MIGHT do something in the future is no excuse for Democrats to fail to protect reproductive liberty, LGBTQ equality, equal access to the ballot box for everyone, and freedom from gun violence NOW.
But let's assume for a moment that you are correct. If Democrats expand the court to 15, Republicans would need to expand it to 21. And then Democrats will expand it further. Would that be bad? No.
The supreme court consisted of six justices when our nation had 4 million people in 13 states. Our population has grown by nearly 100 fold and the number of states has nearly quadrupled. But the court has added only three members in that same time. A Supreme Court of 30 justices would be eminently reasonable. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is that large and manages to conduct business efficiently.
I wasn't looking at it from the standpoint of an ongoing "expansion" war, but the prospect that nefarious types would look for and find a way to 'shrink' it after it had been expanded.
I'm all in on a larger court. Other democracies have larger "top" courts than ours with less population. I'm also all in on serious ethics reforms and an end to lifetime appointments.
As Robert has pointed out several times when discussing this issue, that's the nature of democracy. But to leave the court in its present situation, because we fear that things might get even worse in the future, is to abandon the idea that democracy is the best form of government.
Not suggesting just leaving the court in its present condition. I've thought for some time that the court should be expanded for a number of reasons, and none of them have to do with recent decisions or ethics issues that have come to light of late. So, given those last two, I'm all in on court reform, and the sooner the better. But I'm suggesting if the effort is going to be made that it be made in a way that has the best chance of making it stick for the long term. And I just don't think the 1 vote scenario is the best way to do that. Especially at the moment.
We can agree to disagree, while agreeing that we both want the same thing in the end. A court with more integrity and less ideology.
We need to dump the filibuster and get back to majority rule asap, which is what the Framers intended.
The filibuster is a mechanism put in place by obstructionist minorities (southern states) in the 19th century to enable “unlimited debate” resulting in minority rule.
For an in-depth look at the filibuster, how it developed and how it broke the US Senate, read Kill Switch by Adam Jentleson.
The author also covers how to fix the Senate. Then we can fix the Supreme Court…
I suggest that FDR's reform effort, though not logistically successful, nevertheless had its intended effect. Enough of the justices saw the proverbial handwriting on the wall and changed their perspective on constitutional interpretation. . Although it is likely that at least two of the current justices are unable to see the "wall" or interpret the handwriting, it is at least possible that two or three of the current justices might "get the hint."
Technically, you are correct. For a move so momentous, I would want to be assured of the solid majority that cannot be questioned. The same way Earl Warren wanted Brown v Board of Education to be unanimous.
Wantin' and gettin' are two different things. If it had come down to outlawing segregation with a 6-e3 vote, or even 5-4, or letting it continue, what do you think Earl Warren would have done?
For too long, the Dems sure have taken their time to lead the way in attacking the problem within SCOTUS. It HAS to be reformed right now and not later. We have so many laws, so many rules to cut through that it gets tiresome and worrisome. Cauterize them so we can puncture reforms in!
In referencing the media, I also agree with you, Robert, that they cannot be ignored. We do have Twitter, Tik Tock, and Instagram, for now. The other sites such as Mastadon and Post, I haven’t ventured into yet. It is our job, our duty, to call them out when they feed lies to their audiences. They all deserve oversight from the paying public. It just continues to boggle my mind that Fox news continues their bullshit after getting slammed with a hefty judgment against them. And then you have the pathetic stunt by Comer as he tried so hard to prove he had a Biden whistleblower. Nancy Mace even weighed in on that. Have I told you just how much I really really really despise(hate) the Repubs?
Thank you so much for another great newsletter. On the Supreme Court, I have come to agree with you that we need to expand it. I want to strongly recommend the recently aired PBS documentary about Clarence and Gini Thomas on Frontline. It is 2 hours long and I have only watched 2/3 of it. It is very informative and I understand a great deal more about both of them. While it has increased my understanding of how Clarence Thomas got to be who he is, I am even more horrified by what he is doing and the choices he has made. I know it can also be seen on Passport and on Spectrum on demand in my area at least.
Thomas has played his own personal affirmative action policy right to a seat on the Stench Court! I doubt Papà Bush knew anything about him, yet he gets the nomination despite being severely unqualified.
Professor Tribe should be encouraged to get on Substack and off Twitter. Even by the Biblical standard of forgiving 70 times 7, Twitter is well over any reasonable limits and the current owner should have been the last straw.
I highly recommend another Substack writer, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. He posts about twice a week. Mr. Jabbar is an engaging writer, whose perspective is not always predictable, which I find refreshing and intriguing. His pieces are always well researched and thoughtful.
Historical note: FDR did not increase the size of the court. He threatened to do so in 1937, with an awkward plan quickly dubbed “court-packing.” Before the plan came up for a vote in Congress, Justice Owen Roberts, who had been one of the obstacles to the New Deal, switched in the case of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. That development became known among lawyers as “the switch in time that saved nine.” It may have made the number of justices sacrosanct, for which we are paying the price.
May 15, 2023·edited May 15, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
About the media. In the '90s when I worked on "helping parents understand how television use affects their families" the stat I carried about was that a half-hour news show has the equivalent amount of information as half a sheet of newsprint. TV news is not a good source. And we see what it has done to our democracy. Ever grateful for Substack writers and similar sources.
"TV news is not a good source" - thank you for stating what should be obvious. All the major networks are to some degree imitators of the Fox model. They are click bait on an ancient media platform. They need eyeballs for their overlords (advertisers).
The idea that CBS, NBC or ABC would deliver impartial, important, verifiable information was lost when their news divisions were mushed together with their entertainment businesses. When the major TV networks operated their news divisions as separate entities, they had value. Now they are no different than some stupid reality show or Dancing with the Stars.
When Walter Cronkite reported, he was giving us the facts. Sure his mandate was to build an audience. But the technique was to get the story early and accurately - and then tell it eloquently. Not sensationalize and represent insane points of view. Occasionally, he added a commentary at the end of the broadcast, but it would be labeled as such.
Even PBS, which still has my respect, tries too hard to be "fair" and reports absolutely crazy statements and points of view without challenging them enough. If 70 to 80% of Americans want a new and sensible point of view on gun control, immigration, educational freedom and women's reproductive rights, news "shows" have little to lose by challenging directly the idiot minority politicians who stand in the way of a civilized America. I have on occasion, witnessed Amna Nawaz get irritated with the bullshitters. But not nearly enough.
Real accurate news is out there. But you have to search for it. And you have to read. If it's on a big screen, chances are it's been influenced by the Oligarchs who pay for the advertising.
"Even PBS, which still has my respect, tries too hard to be "fair" and reports absolutely crazy statements and points of view without challenging them enough."
I agree. The PBS News Hour has become a pale shadow of its former self. They are driven by self-preservation to "both-sides" every story. Their best correspondents are in the background as they labor excessively to appear inclusive. They would benefit from emulating the bold journalism which is still a mark of Frontline.
I was so outraged by CNN's free campaign ad time with the Trump town hall event, that I am boycotting its website for news updates. My new go-to site is The Guardian, where I ran across this article about Louisiana's Sen. Kennedy: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/14/senator-john-kennedy-mexico-drug-cartels While not as revealingly insane as Trump's Mother's Day invective, the senator is vying for that descriptor. Too bad you have so many other news items to analyze that you can't do an entire edition on hall-of-shame GOP legislators.
Robert, last night on Jen Psaki’s show on MSNBC, she interviewed the head of Planned Parenthood. That organization has now formally called for 1) adding more members to the Court, 2) imposing term limits on the justices, and 3) creating ethics standards for them as well. It was a major announcement that apparently PP has never taken before! I have one other suggestion until we can do any of those things: when the Extreme Court makes a decision that we believe is unfair and unjust, we should thank them for their time, and tell them we will not abide by that decision. I am ready for Democrats to stand up and defy these reactionists who are destroying our democracy. Let’s “own the MAGAS” for a change. But I’m serious. What they have done to harm women with their Dobbs’ decision is barbaric. And they sit in their chambers and watch the carnage with no remorse, no shame, and no heart to say “enough”. The same with voting rights. They sit back and watch all the red states deny the right to vote to millions of Americans. How can that be tolerated!!!!!
I understand your feelings about disregarding decisions by the Supreme Court. I am not their yet, but I am close. When the say that states can prohibit--or criminalize--same sex marriage or gender affirming therapy for adults, I don't see why we would listen to anything the Court says. And they are close to making those pronouncements; indeed, those decisions are the logical extension of Dobbs.
Thanks, Robert. But how is overturning Roe not as gamechanging as same sex marriage and gender/affirming care? We should somehow never have put up with that!
May 15, 2023·edited May 15, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
On immigration, one often-overlooked aspect is that our gain is—in general—other nations’ loss. Immigrants tend to be the most intelligent and vigorous people in the nation from which they come, which is one of the reasons why immigration is so valuable. But if we want to reduce the strain at our borders, and we should, we need to help to build up other nations’ societies so that fewer of their people will want to flee. That means that we need to spend many billions to aid in building honest, fair societies in the nations to our south, in particular.
Excellent point! I think we'd be better off if the nations south of the border were helped to become Democratic and their economies enhanced by people who might otherwise come to the US.
One area where more immigration would really help reduce the costs of health care in this country would be to allow for more foreign doctors to practice in the US. We have a definite shortage of doctors in this country, especially general practitioners in rural parts of the country. However, the AMA has much political clout in Congress, which keeps the barriers to immigration high for doctors and many other high end professionals. The gains for our economy would be very significant if we reduced the protections for doctors and other high end professionals.
To Beat Trump and Win House and Senate 2023 Must be a Build Infrastructure Year
As Democrats, we spend far too much money and effort in the roller coaster, boom-and-bust cycle close to elections. And too much on prominent marquee campaigns while other efforts starve. Republicans have for years invested for the long term. We must so the same, and more so.
I see 4 major infrastructure arenas we should invest in, that starve and atrophy during the off-year. For Dem State Party support I see a strong best bet for support - SPAN. For the others there are many excellent opportunities and just providing some of my favorites.
1) State Democratic Parties - SPAN (State Party Advancement Network) is very well connected with state parties in key states. They leverage economies of scale by offering key technical support for multiple states.They take no money themselves, but are great at strategic direction and will advise you.
2) Anti MAGA Propaganda. Favorites: For hands-on where you can amplify key messages yourself - DemCast. For contributions to active, strategic messaging to key voters - Courier Newsroom
3) On-the-ground grassroots groups. There are probably hundreds across the country. Movement Voter Project does provide a good window on many, but to be most effective you should drill down to assess. The ones 31st Street Swing Left have selected are on our website. One organization that supports many and some other fine efforts is Rural Development Initiatives.
4) Voter Registration, especially youth. Again numerous active organizations. Favorites: Students Learn Students Vote, You Can Vote (NC Specific) and Civics Center. All 3 are (c)(3)s.
My reason for posting this is not particularly to push my favorites, but to encourage folks to invest in infrastructure.
We know Trump and his minions are such a huge threat. And investing now can make such a difference
I second your comment about strengthening state Democratic parties. We live in Washington State where we have had a full-time highly effective Chair for years. Among the results: we flipped the 3rd Congressional District seat in the last election and held onto another in a tough race.
But it didn't always look this way. In the past party leadership was lazy and the organization was underfunded.
What's the story in YOUR state? Sadly there are only a few stand-out state level Democratic organizations that are building a significant ground game over the years.
Wisconsin, where my wife and I do volunteer work on the ground and remotely is another state Democratic Party with outstanding leadership (Ben Wikler) and an effective organization.
For all the good work done by other national and regional organizations, there is no substitute for a well-funded, well-organized state Dem organization.
Make it your business to know whether you have one--and support them financially (like we do--for WA and WI).
Not sure the State Dems are not their own little, or big, fiefdoms. They too have not found effective ways to reach their own working class voters....and how do you not fix that? Also, I strongly disagree with their "frantic/furious/fuming/sobbing etc" approach to issues instead of the actual issue. Creating fear or anger in our own bases does not help anyone to think.... just how to react emotionally. I feel giving to voter registration groups, GOTV groups and gerrymander prevention groups fits my perspective better.
Points well taken Carole. I don't know what state you reside in. Depending on the situation and your own willingness to get involved in local party politics I wouldn't overlook the potential of the state Dems. We have been SO impressed with the effectiveness and intelligence of the WisDems. Would that every state had this kind of leadership.
Hi Mark. I agree there huge need out there, but actually wouldn't take that much compared to the mega millions that gets spent on races. Our current priority is supporting SPAN to support Dem State Parties in the key States of Arizona and Michigan, specifically for voter protection, which is one of the key areas of expertise SPAN provides across states. Some details on our 31st St Swing Left website: https://www.31ststreet.org/
Thank you for posting this into, James Shelton. Very useful. Just copied it onto a Stickie.
Thanks. Great information and your right grass roots state involvement focused on registering voters and then turnout is the only way to win.
James, this post is immensely helpful. And, of course, we must build infrastructure. For some time I have tried to figure out where best to spend my time and money. This is a very good beginning. Thank you!!!
Reforming the Court is an excellent idea. Let's go elect 62 Democratic Senators, and do it.
Don’t need to do that. Need 51 Democrats willing to reform Senate rules to limit or eliminate the filibuster, then expand the court by majority vote—you know, like they do in democracies.
Setting aside what would need to happen after a successful *1* vote Senate win on court reform, let's say that happens and the process plays out successfully. Got a way to make that bullet proof? What about the next time the GOP controls the Senate (and the rest of the process)? And that will happen at some point.
"Reform by 1 vote" implies "un-reform by 1 vote" just as possible. Something more durable than that probably needed if you don't want ping pong balls for justices.
Of course, actual ping pong balls would be preferable to a couple of the current sitting justices.
Hi, M. The objection that "Won't Republicans do the same thing" ensures that nothing will ever get done. Failing to act because Republicans MIGHT do something in the future is no excuse for Democrats to fail to protect reproductive liberty, LGBTQ equality, equal access to the ballot box for everyone, and freedom from gun violence NOW.
But let's assume for a moment that you are correct. If Democrats expand the court to 15, Republicans would need to expand it to 21. And then Democrats will expand it further. Would that be bad? No.
The supreme court consisted of six justices when our nation had 4 million people in 13 states. Our population has grown by nearly 100 fold and the number of states has nearly quadrupled. But the court has added only three members in that same time. A Supreme Court of 30 justices would be eminently reasonable. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is that large and manages to conduct business efficiently.
I wasn't looking at it from the standpoint of an ongoing "expansion" war, but the prospect that nefarious types would look for and find a way to 'shrink' it after it had been expanded.
I'm all in on a larger court. Other democracies have larger "top" courts than ours with less population. I'm also all in on serious ethics reforms and an end to lifetime appointments.
Thank you for this information. I didn't know about the 9th Circuit Court. If only we had more facts when we form our opinions... !!
Dems hamstring themselves, R’s never do….
As Robert has pointed out several times when discussing this issue, that's the nature of democracy. But to leave the court in its present situation, because we fear that things might get even worse in the future, is to abandon the idea that democracy is the best form of government.
Not suggesting just leaving the court in its present condition. I've thought for some time that the court should be expanded for a number of reasons, and none of them have to do with recent decisions or ethics issues that have come to light of late. So, given those last two, I'm all in on court reform, and the sooner the better. But I'm suggesting if the effort is going to be made that it be made in a way that has the best chance of making it stick for the long term. And I just don't think the 1 vote scenario is the best way to do that. Especially at the moment.
We can agree to disagree, while agreeing that we both want the same thing in the end. A court with more integrity and less ideology.
We need to dump the filibuster and get back to majority rule asap, which is what the Framers intended.
The filibuster is a mechanism put in place by obstructionist minorities (southern states) in the 19th century to enable “unlimited debate” resulting in minority rule.
For an in-depth look at the filibuster, how it developed and how it broke the US Senate, read Kill Switch by Adam Jentleson.
The author also covers how to fix the Senate. Then we can fix the Supreme Court…
I suggest that FDR's reform effort, though not logistically successful, nevertheless had its intended effect. Enough of the justices saw the proverbial handwriting on the wall and changed their perspective on constitutional interpretation. . Although it is likely that at least two of the current justices are unable to see the "wall" or interpret the handwriting, it is at least possible that two or three of the current justices might "get the hint."
Jon - how do you propose to do that with one Democrat (Manchin) and one (now) Independent (Sinema) adamantly opposed to doing that?
Elect more Democrats. (I didn't say it would be easy, did I?)
Exactly why I wrote what I did.
Technically, you are correct. For a move so momentous, I would want to be assured of the solid majority that cannot be questioned. The same way Earl Warren wanted Brown v Board of Education to be unanimous.
Wantin' and gettin' are two different things. If it had come down to outlawing segregation with a 6-e3 vote, or even 5-4, or letting it continue, what do you think Earl Warren would have done?
I wish it were thst easy.
So do I - which was my point.
For too long, the Dems sure have taken their time to lead the way in attacking the problem within SCOTUS. It HAS to be reformed right now and not later. We have so many laws, so many rules to cut through that it gets tiresome and worrisome. Cauterize them so we can puncture reforms in!
In referencing the media, I also agree with you, Robert, that they cannot be ignored. We do have Twitter, Tik Tock, and Instagram, for now. The other sites such as Mastadon and Post, I haven’t ventured into yet. It is our job, our duty, to call them out when they feed lies to their audiences. They all deserve oversight from the paying public. It just continues to boggle my mind that Fox news continues their bullshit after getting slammed with a hefty judgment against them. And then you have the pathetic stunt by Comer as he tried so hard to prove he had a Biden whistleblower. Nancy Mace even weighed in on that. Have I told you just how much I really really really despise(hate) the Repubs?
They keep running the same old plays and over time they become less effective and not believable and that time has arrived.
Two trustworthy news sources:
DemocracyNow.org
TheGuardian.com
For me these sources' daily free newsletters cover pretty much all top-priority topics.
And yes, expand the court!
me too
Love The Guardian. Will check out DemocracyNow.org. Thanks Eric!
Thank you so much for another great newsletter. On the Supreme Court, I have come to agree with you that we need to expand it. I want to strongly recommend the recently aired PBS documentary about Clarence and Gini Thomas on Frontline. It is 2 hours long and I have only watched 2/3 of it. It is very informative and I understand a great deal more about both of them. While it has increased my understanding of how Clarence Thomas got to be who he is, I am even more horrified by what he is doing and the choices he has made. I know it can also be seen on Passport and on Spectrum on demand in my area at least.
Thomas has played his own personal affirmative action policy right to a seat on the Stench Court! I doubt Papà Bush knew anything about him, yet he gets the nomination despite being severely unqualified.
Yes, the Frontline program is eye-popping.
Professor Tribe should be encouraged to get on Substack and off Twitter. Even by the Biblical standard of forgiving 70 times 7, Twitter is well over any reasonable limits and the current owner should have been the last straw.
I highly recommend another Substack writer, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. He posts about twice a week. Mr. Jabbar is an engaging writer, whose perspective is not always predictable, which I find refreshing and intriguing. His pieces are always well researched and thoughtful.
A great find.
Glad to hear it!
Than"k you. I just checked his substack out. Very thoughtful commentary on serious issues plus I'm now listening to Miles Davis' "So What".
You're welcome. And with the bonus of Miles Davis!
Yes to expanding the court! and term-limits and a binding code of ethics.
I completely agree with reforming the courts!
Historical note: FDR did not increase the size of the court. He threatened to do so in 1937, with an awkward plan quickly dubbed “court-packing.” Before the plan came up for a vote in Congress, Justice Owen Roberts, who had been one of the obstacles to the New Deal, switched in the case of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. That development became known among lawyers as “the switch in time that saved nine.” It may have made the number of justices sacrosanct, for which we are paying the price.
I stand corrected.Thank-you.
About the media. In the '90s when I worked on "helping parents understand how television use affects their families" the stat I carried about was that a half-hour news show has the equivalent amount of information as half a sheet of newsprint. TV news is not a good source. And we see what it has done to our democracy. Ever grateful for Substack writers and similar sources.
"TV news is not a good source" - thank you for stating what should be obvious. All the major networks are to some degree imitators of the Fox model. They are click bait on an ancient media platform. They need eyeballs for their overlords (advertisers).
The idea that CBS, NBC or ABC would deliver impartial, important, verifiable information was lost when their news divisions were mushed together with their entertainment businesses. When the major TV networks operated their news divisions as separate entities, they had value. Now they are no different than some stupid reality show or Dancing with the Stars.
When Walter Cronkite reported, he was giving us the facts. Sure his mandate was to build an audience. But the technique was to get the story early and accurately - and then tell it eloquently. Not sensationalize and represent insane points of view. Occasionally, he added a commentary at the end of the broadcast, but it would be labeled as such.
Even PBS, which still has my respect, tries too hard to be "fair" and reports absolutely crazy statements and points of view without challenging them enough. If 70 to 80% of Americans want a new and sensible point of view on gun control, immigration, educational freedom and women's reproductive rights, news "shows" have little to lose by challenging directly the idiot minority politicians who stand in the way of a civilized America. I have on occasion, witnessed Amna Nawaz get irritated with the bullshitters. But not nearly enough.
Real accurate news is out there. But you have to search for it. And you have to read. If it's on a big screen, chances are it's been influenced by the Oligarchs who pay for the advertising.
"Even PBS, which still has my respect, tries too hard to be "fair" and reports absolutely crazy statements and points of view without challenging them enough."
I agree. The PBS News Hour has become a pale shadow of its former self. They are driven by self-preservation to "both-sides" every story. Their best correspondents are in the background as they labor excessively to appear inclusive. They would benefit from emulating the bold journalism which is still a mark of Frontline.
Indeed. Never forget that 95% of the MSM is owned by 5 corporations. (At least that's the most commonly used stat.)I found this while trying to verify my memory. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/futureofmedia/index-us-mainstream-media-ownership
I was so outraged by CNN's free campaign ad time with the Trump town hall event, that I am boycotting its website for news updates. My new go-to site is The Guardian, where I ran across this article about Louisiana's Sen. Kennedy: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/14/senator-john-kennedy-mexico-drug-cartels While not as revealingly insane as Trump's Mother's Day invective, the senator is vying for that descriptor. Too bad you have so many other news items to analyze that you can't do an entire edition on hall-of-shame GOP legislators.
The Guardian is a good source. I am a (voluntary) paying subscriber to The Guardian.
As have I for several years now. Well worth supporting.
Kennedy disgraces the word disgrace by his disgusting outlandishness.
Sorry for the multiple comments. Since reading this, "The sooner we all acknowledge Trump is mentally ill, the safer we will be.” I've been thinking about it. Then I encountered this from Steve Schmidt https://action.lincolnproject.us/ricktakesdowncnn?utm_campaign=051223_rick&utm_medium=email&utm_source=lincolnproject. Another statement of "insanity"
Wow. Powerful statement by Schmidt calling out CNN. Thanks.
Robert, last night on Jen Psaki’s show on MSNBC, she interviewed the head of Planned Parenthood. That organization has now formally called for 1) adding more members to the Court, 2) imposing term limits on the justices, and 3) creating ethics standards for them as well. It was a major announcement that apparently PP has never taken before! I have one other suggestion until we can do any of those things: when the Extreme Court makes a decision that we believe is unfair and unjust, we should thank them for their time, and tell them we will not abide by that decision. I am ready for Democrats to stand up and defy these reactionists who are destroying our democracy. Let’s “own the MAGAS” for a change. But I’m serious. What they have done to harm women with their Dobbs’ decision is barbaric. And they sit in their chambers and watch the carnage with no remorse, no shame, and no heart to say “enough”. The same with voting rights. They sit back and watch all the red states deny the right to vote to millions of Americans. How can that be tolerated!!!!!
I understand your feelings about disregarding decisions by the Supreme Court. I am not their yet, but I am close. When the say that states can prohibit--or criminalize--same sex marriage or gender affirming therapy for adults, I don't see why we would listen to anything the Court says. And they are close to making those pronouncements; indeed, those decisions are the logical extension of Dobbs.
Thanks, Robert. But how is overturning Roe not as gamechanging as same sex marriage and gender/affirming care? We should somehow never have put up with that!
I always wonder how Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson stomach this. Nerves of steel and professionalism extraordinaire.
It must be so painful and demoralizing to have to be associated with this body.
DJT has insulted me. I'm now either a fascist, Marxist or communist? None of the above.
I am a woman and voter. My blood runs blue and I don't like
ketchup.
When I say, "take it to them", I don't mean just Republicans. We
need to energize the Democratic party. What have they done in the House since January? Only
a few have been outspoken. Too
many are silent, or infighting. They need to support, openly and collectively, Biden/Harris.
Yes, expand the SCOTUS and
Congress needs to do the job
WE pay them for. Ethics, strong
ethics. Close off all these loop
holes people keep slipping through. Term limits. No judge
should have a job for life.
On immigration, one often-overlooked aspect is that our gain is—in general—other nations’ loss. Immigrants tend to be the most intelligent and vigorous people in the nation from which they come, which is one of the reasons why immigration is so valuable. But if we want to reduce the strain at our borders, and we should, we need to help to build up other nations’ societies so that fewer of their people will want to flee. That means that we need to spend many billions to aid in building honest, fair societies in the nations to our south, in particular.
Excellent point! I think we'd be better off if the nations south of the border were helped to become Democratic and their economies enhanced by people who might otherwise come to the US.
One area where more immigration would really help reduce the costs of health care in this country would be to allow for more foreign doctors to practice in the US. We have a definite shortage of doctors in this country, especially general practitioners in rural parts of the country. However, the AMA has much political clout in Congress, which keeps the barriers to immigration high for doctors and many other high end professionals. The gains for our economy would be very significant if we reduced the protections for doctors and other high end professionals.
Good point!
Let's flight inflation at the top of the income scale for once.
A lot of American doctors are unable to match, that is, to get their residency training
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/19/health/medical-school-residency-doctors.html