I write in response to today’s newsletter discussions, first, of Abramowitz’s encouraging statistically insignificant findings regarding the impact of voter suppression measures in the 2016 and 2020 elections and, second, of Rachel Maddow’s deep dive into the creation of alternate slates of electors and the seizing of voting machines.
As to the former, please note the Brennan Center for Justice, between January 1st and June 17th of 2021, had reported that 17 states had enacted 38 new laws that restricted access to the vote, and, as we all know, more new restrictive laws since have followed. My point is that Abramowitz’s findings, though heartening, don’t account for these added restrictions. Perhaps more important, our most heroic activists, who have led the charge to overcome voter suppression and partisan gerrymandering by galvanizing voter turnout, are rightfully expressing that no amount of organizing can get us around state-level election subversion measures currently changing who can be in charge, how votes are counted, and how they’re certified. Though no one is giving up, acknowledging the near impossibility of surmounting these unprecedented obstacles ensures that those who stay in the fight will fight more effectively.
As for increased confidence that DOJ finally appears to have started investigations based on Maddow’s reporting, I would caution that for some time, despite sufficient factual predication for opening criminal investigations of those at the top, no one with connections to DOJ is aware of such. I believe, quoting Justice Correspondent Elie Mystal, if “slow-moving institutionalist” Merrick Garland has not already ginned up a full-blown criminal investigation, he should do so yesterday, if not yesterday, then tomorrow. Though the inevitable downsides of indictments in our politically charged climate, surely, are reason for concern, those decisions are for a later date. For now, the investigations must go full speed ahead, if only because when those at the top are being criminally investigated, and perhaps informed they’re possible targets, that the public’s attention tends to focus. And, indeed, the mind of the country needs to be focused on this, because, however important other things are, we nearly are running out the clock on democracy itself. If we don’t start holding everybody at the top accountable, at least to the point of being subject to full-blown criminal investigation, then we’re really giving up on protecting our key civic institutions that are premised on the principal that no one is above the law.
As a final point, I would note that it’s not nearly as easy to stonewall a grand jury as it is to stonewall a congressional committee.
Thank you for recognizing the very important work Rebecca Solnit is doing. I hope you heard her in conversation with Heather Cox Richardson, not long ago. I join HCR in recommending Ms. Solnit’s newest book, Orwell’s Roses, wholeheartedly. It’s a beauty.
Feb 4, 2022·edited Feb 4, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a Democratic majority of 5-2, so it is unlikely the Court will back the map proposed by the GOP-controlled legislature. But don’t expect a partisan result in favor of Democrats, either. Prior decisions by the Court in redistricting challenges have produced maps generally agreed to be fair to all concerned."
Rhetorical Question: If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had a Republican majority of 5-2, would the Court also produce "maps generally agreed to be fair to all concerned"???
The answer reflects one of the core differences between Democrats and Republicans.
Yes, excellent reporters. It is the headline writers who could use a slap on the wrist [editors?]. i am so proud of our President who is actually presidential! And I, too, believe that our main work lies in motivating turnout. It has ever been thus in the land of the apathetic voter!
I am currently reading “The Bully Pulpit” by Doris Kearns Goodwin and am struck by the similarities of between these two different eras. History certainly does rhyme. The press was as important then as it is today, but it wasn’t everyone in the press, but a few really thoughtful, hard-working members who took their role as reporters seriously. Good to be reminded of those people who continue in that tradition. I am grateful to them.
Have a great weekend. I disagree only with the description of "defund the police" as a messaging failure. The people who said it by and large meant it and people who heard them believed they would. That's successful by any measure. What it was and is is a stupid message that got a lot of headlines and, as you note, likely cost Democrats some seats at all levels. Mr. Biden has stepped up in foreign policy and the party needs to follow the advice of a former President and "don't do stupid stuff". Wouldn't hurt for the GOP to take that advice too.
"The Pennsylvania legislature and governor could not agree on a redistricting plan after being ordered to do so by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. So, with the primary season closing in, the Supreme Court has taken control of the redistricting process. See Talking Points Memo, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Takes Over Redistricting Due To Deadlock Over GOP-Drawn Map. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a Democratic majority of 5-2, so it is unlikely the Court will back the map proposed by the GOP-controlled legislature. But don’t expect a partisan result in favor of Democrats, either. Prior decisions by the Court in redistricting challenges have produced maps generally agreed to be fair to all concerned."
As former Attorney General Eric Holder said when interviewed on the Rachel Maddow Show on August 13, 2021, "We don't have to cheat. Republicans have to cheat in order to win."
Robert, thank you for taking the time to call out those members of the press and public who are defending democracy. A free press is the unofficial fourth branch of our government. We must do all we can to support their efforts (including writing letters of support to their publishers) and oppose those who abuse that freedom to propagate falsehoods and misinformation.
Regarding your ongoing look at Putin’s moves towards Ukraine, you might look at this opinion piece published in the NYTimes a couple days ago that looks mire closely at Putin’s longer range strategy/intent. Included at the finish is a link to another piece Fiona Hill wrote.
The reason I am commenting the first time is that I forwarded this piece to two friends here in Seattle. One ran the Jackson Foundation (created on the death of Senator Scoop Jackson) for 25 years which focuses on Russia. Her partner is a Russian. They both agreed with the assessment of Putin’s intentions outlined in the piece. It appears it is worth considerIng and perhaps sharing with your followers.
There are many complex interweaving threads brought up here preceding and leading up to Trump’s election and other events going on in Europe.
As always I salute your on-going efforts. Especially as you have expanded into your podcasts. Hearing directly from people has much greater impact than visiting a website. The sharing of stories is powerful as we know.
Thank you for listing the media heroes of our time, considering how negative in tone that US media tends to report the news. I do agree with someone else here who mentioned Nicole Wallace should also be praised for her work.
"Journalists like Maddow, Jennifer Rubin, Dahlia Lithwick, Eugene Robinson, Ezra Klein, Ian Milhiser, Josh Marshall, Philip Rotner, Rebecca Solnit, and Maggie Haberman, and commentators like Larry Tribe, Maya Wiley, Barbara McQuade, Jill Wine-Banks, and Joyce Vance, (to name only a few) are honoring the highest traditions of journalism and the First Amendment."
Jessica Craven, in Chop Wood Carry Water, recommended this as a fantastic article. The authors echo your discussions of optimism and encouragement of why and how Democrats can win in 2022. Possibly many readers will send this to you it is so good.
Don’t forget Nicole Wallace!!! Terrific commentary. Unrelenting focus!
I write in response to today’s newsletter discussions, first, of Abramowitz’s encouraging statistically insignificant findings regarding the impact of voter suppression measures in the 2016 and 2020 elections and, second, of Rachel Maddow’s deep dive into the creation of alternate slates of electors and the seizing of voting machines.
As to the former, please note the Brennan Center for Justice, between January 1st and June 17th of 2021, had reported that 17 states had enacted 38 new laws that restricted access to the vote, and, as we all know, more new restrictive laws since have followed. My point is that Abramowitz’s findings, though heartening, don’t account for these added restrictions. Perhaps more important, our most heroic activists, who have led the charge to overcome voter suppression and partisan gerrymandering by galvanizing voter turnout, are rightfully expressing that no amount of organizing can get us around state-level election subversion measures currently changing who can be in charge, how votes are counted, and how they’re certified. Though no one is giving up, acknowledging the near impossibility of surmounting these unprecedented obstacles ensures that those who stay in the fight will fight more effectively.
As for increased confidence that DOJ finally appears to have started investigations based on Maddow’s reporting, I would caution that for some time, despite sufficient factual predication for opening criminal investigations of those at the top, no one with connections to DOJ is aware of such. I believe, quoting Justice Correspondent Elie Mystal, if “slow-moving institutionalist” Merrick Garland has not already ginned up a full-blown criminal investigation, he should do so yesterday, if not yesterday, then tomorrow. Though the inevitable downsides of indictments in our politically charged climate, surely, are reason for concern, those decisions are for a later date. For now, the investigations must go full speed ahead, if only because when those at the top are being criminally investigated, and perhaps informed they’re possible targets, that the public’s attention tends to focus. And, indeed, the mind of the country needs to be focused on this, because, however important other things are, we nearly are running out the clock on democracy itself. If we don’t start holding everybody at the top accountable, at least to the point of being subject to full-blown criminal investigation, then we’re really giving up on protecting our key civic institutions that are premised on the principal that no one is above the law.
As a final point, I would note that it’s not nearly as easy to stonewall a grand jury as it is to stonewall a congressional committee.
Thank you for recognizing the very important work Rebecca Solnit is doing. I hope you heard her in conversation with Heather Cox Richardson, not long ago. I join HCR in recommending Ms. Solnit’s newest book, Orwell’s Roses, wholeheartedly. It’s a beauty.
Isn’t it nice to have a President again—an American President?
A good weekend to all, and thanks again, Robert, for all you do for us, and for the nation.
Wow. Doesn't it feel SO good to be proud of your President again?
"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a Democratic majority of 5-2, so it is unlikely the Court will back the map proposed by the GOP-controlled legislature. But don’t expect a partisan result in favor of Democrats, either. Prior decisions by the Court in redistricting challenges have produced maps generally agreed to be fair to all concerned."
Rhetorical Question: If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had a Republican majority of 5-2, would the Court also produce "maps generally agreed to be fair to all concerned"???
The answer reflects one of the core differences between Democrats and Republicans.
Yes, excellent reporters. It is the headline writers who could use a slap on the wrist [editors?]. i am so proud of our President who is actually presidential! And I, too, believe that our main work lies in motivating turnout. It has ever been thus in the land of the apathetic voter!
I am currently reading “The Bully Pulpit” by Doris Kearns Goodwin and am struck by the similarities of between these two different eras. History certainly does rhyme. The press was as important then as it is today, but it wasn’t everyone in the press, but a few really thoughtful, hard-working members who took their role as reporters seriously. Good to be reminded of those people who continue in that tradition. I am grateful to them.
Have a great weekend. I disagree only with the description of "defund the police" as a messaging failure. The people who said it by and large meant it and people who heard them believed they would. That's successful by any measure. What it was and is is a stupid message that got a lot of headlines and, as you note, likely cost Democrats some seats at all levels. Mr. Biden has stepped up in foreign policy and the party needs to follow the advice of a former President and "don't do stupid stuff". Wouldn't hurt for the GOP to take that advice too.
"The Pennsylvania legislature and governor could not agree on a redistricting plan after being ordered to do so by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. So, with the primary season closing in, the Supreme Court has taken control of the redistricting process. See Talking Points Memo, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Takes Over Redistricting Due To Deadlock Over GOP-Drawn Map. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a Democratic majority of 5-2, so it is unlikely the Court will back the map proposed by the GOP-controlled legislature. But don’t expect a partisan result in favor of Democrats, either. Prior decisions by the Court in redistricting challenges have produced maps generally agreed to be fair to all concerned."
As former Attorney General Eric Holder said when interviewed on the Rachel Maddow Show on August 13, 2021, "We don't have to cheat. Republicans have to cheat in order to win."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edKL-ZNlRGc
Robert, thank you for taking the time to call out those members of the press and public who are defending democracy. A free press is the unofficial fourth branch of our government. We must do all we can to support their efforts (including writing letters of support to their publishers) and oppose those who abuse that freedom to propagate falsehoods and misinformation.
Regarding your ongoing look at Putin’s moves towards Ukraine, you might look at this opinion piece published in the NYTimes a couple days ago that looks mire closely at Putin’s longer range strategy/intent. Included at the finish is a link to another piece Fiona Hill wrote.
The reason I am commenting the first time is that I forwarded this piece to two friends here in Seattle. One ran the Jackson Foundation (created on the death of Senator Scoop Jackson) for 25 years which focuses on Russia. Her partner is a Russian. They both agreed with the assessment of Putin’s intentions outlined in the piece. It appears it is worth considerIng and perhaps sharing with your followers.
There are many complex interweaving threads brought up here preceding and leading up to Trump’s election and other events going on in Europe.
As always I salute your on-going efforts. Especially as you have expanded into your podcasts. Hearing directly from people has much greater impact than visiting a website. The sharing of stories is powerful as we know.
Whoops forgot the link to the opinion piece:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/03/opinion/putin-russia-ukraine-europe.html
Thank you for listing the media heroes of our time, considering how negative in tone that US media tends to report the news. I do agree with someone else here who mentioned Nicole Wallace should also be praised for her work.
"Journalists like Maddow, Jennifer Rubin, Dahlia Lithwick, Eugene Robinson, Ezra Klein, Ian Milhiser, Josh Marshall, Philip Rotner, Rebecca Solnit, and Maggie Haberman, and commentators like Larry Tribe, Maya Wiley, Barbara McQuade, Jill Wine-Banks, and Joyce Vance, (to name only a few) are honoring the highest traditions of journalism and the First Amendment."
Jessica Craven, in Chop Wood Carry Water, recommended this as a fantastic article. The authors echo your discussions of optimism and encouragement of why and how Democrats can win in 2022. Possibly many readers will send this to you it is so good.
https://www.mikeluxmedia.com/single-post/why-democrats-can-win-in-2022-and-how-we-will-do-it
I often say the same thing: Thank you. Styra Avins Eisinger