Here is the note from Alice Schaffer Smith regarding actions steps you can take:
URGENT CALL TO ACTION: contact Senator Schumer's, Murkowski, Romney, Sinema, Collins, Manchin and Portman's offices and reach their chief of staff or legislative staff and explain why Moore v Harper will destroy our Constitution and it is imperative for them to cross the aisle and stand up for WE, THE PEOPLE this week. H.R. 5746 won't hurt any Republicans and gives every American the same rights.
Phone numbers are available on each state's page or on your senator's website
Senators Suite & Telephone List (PDF)
A U.S. Capitol Switchboard operator can also connect you directly with the Senate office. (202) 224-3121
PRIMO LEVI summed it up: "If not now, when?"
Fight for your democracy. Don't just LIKE what Robert, Heather Cox or I or others write.
Here is the email from Alice Schaffer Smith with background information on H.R. 5746:
Moore v Harper sets the State Legislature of North Carolina against its own State Supreme Court and its Constitution on the ridiculous proposition that Article 1.4 of the US Constitution grants exclusive jurisdiction to State Legislatures to the exclusion of its own State Constitution or its Supreme Court when Congress has failed to act under Article 1.4 to determine times, places and manner. of elections.
Listening to the Supreme Court hearing made me realize how imperative it is to pass H.R. 5746 this week in the U.S Senate to remove any chance that our Justices would revoke 233 years of precedence on this bizarre interpretation of the meaning of the election clause and grant essentially unlimited power to State Legislatures to call the shots on its own elections.
So here is a teach in for those who haven't followed HR 5746 or how the Supreme Court has been stripping Congress of its authority granted under Article 1.4, AND the 14th, 15th, 19th and other voting rights amendments and deferring to State Legislatures since 2010 under the Roberts' Court:
----------
In January the Senators filibustered H.R. 5746, The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, thus preventing the Senate from exercising its authority under Article 1.4 to debate and then vote on a uniform federal election law. Under a rule of the Senate and not under the Constitution, a super majority of 60 votes is needed for the Senate to pass most legislation, even though the Congress is empowered to pass legislation under Article 1.4, the 14th and 15th Amendments without reference to any super majority filibuster rule. Thus California with 39m population has 2 Senators and the 5 least populous states have a total of 3.5m voters and 10 Senators plus the filibuster.
When it comes to passing voting rights, isn’t it ironic that voting rights advocates are asking the Senate to pass a uniform election code for voting to ensure 1 person 1 vote and every vote counted, yet the Senate itself does not have 1 Senator 1 vote.
Next: consider the role of the Supreme Court in ruling against Congress’ exercise of its powers under Articles 1.4, the 14th and 15th and subsequent voting right Amendments.
The Supreme Court has stated that unless Congress enacts specific election laws, times, places and manner of voting shall be determined by individual state legislatures.
Congress has the power to set uniform national standards for times, places and manner of voting under the Constitution of the United States of America. Article 1.4 grants to each State Legislature the power to set the times, places and manner of holding elections for US Senators and Representatives, “but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.....”
Congress enacted and then amended 8 times, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 so that: “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure, shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color” which purposes were subsequently expanded to include discrimination based on national origin, disabilities, etc.
The VRA’s greatest early impact was in its pre-clearance requirement for Federal Court or Justice Department approval before jurisdictions that had historically discriminated could change voting rules, processes, or procedures. One result: By 1969, Mississippi’s Black voter registration rate increased to 59% from 6%.
Nonetheless the US Supreme Court has been gutting and continues to gut the Voting Rights Act of 1965:
● Citizens United v FEC (2010) removed Federal campaign restrictions on Corporations and Unions, unleashing unlimited and undisclosed (foreign) money into politics
● Shelby County v Holder (2013) held that the pre-clearance formula is unconstitutional. Impact: 1688 polling places closed in previously covered States; 30 million voters purged from voting rolls, restrictive voting laws such as strict voter ID laws enacted in at least 19 states:
● Rucho v Common Cause (2019) ruled that state laws permitting partisan (not racial) gerrymandering are “beyond the reach of the federal courts.”
● Brnovich v DNC (2021) upheld an Arizona law to stop people from collecting ballots to deliver to precincts, which disproportionately impacted indigenous peoples; and to stop counting ballots from people who voted in the wrong precinct.
● Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless (NEOCH) v. Husted (2016): by not granting certiorari upheld Ohio’s perfection rule allowing insignificant errors on the outside envelope of a provisional ballot to disqualify the vote of a properly registered voter - one was a blind 84 year old voter prohibited from voting, clearly a denial of the right to vote in contravention of the rights of disabled voters to be able to vote.
Thus State Legislatures have gained significant power after the Supreme Court overruled federal oversight of State and Local jurisdictions enacted under Article 1.4 and the 14th and subsequent voting related Amendments.
In January the House passed H.R.5746 – a federal uniform set of laws to ensure inter alia:
● uniform laws setting times, places and manner of voting:
● paper ballots for all voters to ensure post-election audits and accuracy;
● preventing the horrific 3 hours in line to vote in Georgia just on Friday by reducing to a maximum of 30 minutes the waiting time in line to vote, early voting, no excuse vote by mail,
● franking of the vote-by-mail envelope,
● adequate funding to the States to implement the mandates of H.R. 5746,
● a national holiday for election day,
● nonpartisan independent redistricting commissions in every state,
● no foreign money in our elections through clean money provisions,
● the Native American Voting Rights Act and reinstating the preclearance provisions of the John R Lewis Act with defined standards thus ending the impacts of Shelby, Rucho, NEOCH and Brnovich.
In this October 2022 Term the US Supreme Court has taken up 2 significant voting rights cases which likely will further result in its evisceration of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ("VRA") and grant even more power to state legislatures.
Moore v Harper : By June 2023 SCOTUS is likely to grant North Carolina’s state legislature (and other states) power under Article 1.4 to determine times place and manners of elections even if held unconstitutional under the terms of North Carolina’s State Constitution, making state legislatures superior to the oversight of their State Supreme Courts.
Merrill v Mulligan : The Court is likely to support Alabama’s position that racial consideration in redistricting is impermissible, notwithstanding that eliminating the impact of racial segregation is an underlying purpose of the VRA. Keep in mind that the Roberts’ Court had no problem finding political gerrymandering by state legislatures to be constitutional in Rucho because it is not up to the Supreme Court to question the political decisions of an equal branch of government.
H.R. 5746 will not be re-enacted by the new House of Representatives on January 2023.
To protect the right to vote it is imperative to end the filibuster of H.R. 5746 this week: debate and vote on the Freedom to Vote: John R Lewis Voting Rights Act.
I’m so tired of the Democrats always having to play defense against ridiculous assertions made by the media who seem driven more by getting clicks and eyeballs rather than facts. The media today in some reporting is responsible for fueling the MAGA base and providing them with creditably. A perfect example of this is the comments about leaving a marine behind during the hostage swap. Here are the facts. Paul Whelan was court-martialed and dishonorably discharged for larceny, dereliction(s) of duty, lying, using someone else's social security number, and writing 10 bad checks.He was not a war hero. This information was not being reported in any detail by the mainstream media. Also not mentioned was the fact that Trump and John Bolton could not bring Whelan home after he was taken hostage during the Trump Administration. There are always two sides to every story. I just want the media to call it as it is.
Warnocke, Griner, lower inflation, robust consumer spending and labor markets, same-sex marriage legislation, Ukraine taking the fight to Russian soil.......Repeat after me: I WILL NOT GET TIRED OF WINNING. I WILL NOT GET TIRED OF WINNING...
Robert, your comments regarding the election stories (yes, “stories?) from the media are excellent. Groups like Activate America https://www.activateamerica.vote/ and Focus for Democracy https://www.focus4democracy.org/ really are doing the heavy lifting of putting together data for maximum returns on get out the vote and more. The kind of deeper analysis they demonstrated during a Zoom call I participated in this fall really spoke to me about the efforts we need to pay attention to while turning away from the media headlines. In particular, I read the piece you wrote about indicating Georgia Republican voters may not have voted for Walker, etc. As I read it, there seemed to be more questions than good information. Let’s face it, the press is regretfully always so damn eager to have us believe they have the answers/scoop.
We must take your advice and move well beyond the media’s quick rush to show us they know best. Pundits are they.
Many scholars in linguistics, political science, sociology, and neuroscience psychology identify as Democrats yet the DNC historically appears to have been weak in developing effective messaging and conducting deeper dives into the pulse of the electorate.
Through time, political preferences, and priorities migrate. Furthermore, the Republicans have been masterful at creating content that captures emotional reflexes (fear and anger), resulting in Pavlovian responses and deafening other, more complicated debates.
We need to invest in the science of messaging and marketing to be agile and responsive to the pulse of the electorate.
When I saw the headline in Nate Cohn’s latest clickbait, my first thought was that the Republican Party is looking a lot less solid and monolithic. That can only be good news.
Robert - this may be old news to many but I just finished listening to Rachel Maddow’s “Ultra” series. It is astoundingly well written, researched and produced, and should be mandatory reading for every US citizen. As a history major in college, my course work ended just short of WW 1, and I am embarrassed to say that I haven’t put enough effort into filling in intervening events. Ultra does so - and it is a lesson in current events. Rachel also closes by underlining how individuals and groups of alert and committed citizens ultimately turned the tables on the infiltration of our government by Nazis and other fascist adherents.
Dec 9, 2022·edited Dec 9, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
One of my pet peeves is how statistics are so often misused and misleading in the media and other sources. Years ago while my husband was working on his Masters, I was working at an experimental college which offered a course titled "How to Lie with Statistics". It taught statistics but also how statistics can be twisted easily into lies. One that bothers me a lot is the statistics including only the two major parties. 30% of Republicans believe such and such. Since Republicans are around 25-30% of the voting population that means only 9% of the voters have that position. Doesn't sound so daunting, does it? I have seen more of the media reporting on the Independents which is around 40% of the voting population giving a much more comprehensive and accurate picture of what is happening. We, the People, all of us this time!
Cree Hardegree (about whom I know nothing but this) posted a piece on FB about the Warnock win that is long, but SO spot-on I think your readers will appreciate it and be well advised! As a Californian who wrote a ton of postcards to GA, but took CA races somewhat for granted, I stand chastised. Check it out!
Dear Robert, I did not receive your newsletter yesterday and have been worrying about you for 24 hours! After starting each day with you for several years I assumed you’d had a heart attack! Today’s came through, thankfully. Take care of yourself - you are an important part of my life.
I have hesitated to talk about the deal to trade Brittney Griner for Viktor Bout, because, as a retired Foreign Service Officer who was involved in similar situations during the Cold War, I understand how few options the Biden Administration actually has, and how difficult their situation is: they are being forced to trade international criminals like Bout for hostages. But some things must be said.
First, the Griner-Bout trade is a terrible deal. It was highly asymmetrical. Trading a WNBA star who effectively committed no crime at all for a person who is responsible for selling arms all over the world, and undoubtedly caused the deaths of thousands of innocents, is not making a deal -- it is paying ransom. It shows weakness to Putin, which is always bad since it could lead to further miscalculations on his part.
In particular, despite the naysaying in Washington, it does indeed tempt people like Putin into taking additional hostages. The record is quite clear on this, if you go back to the Cold War, and track what happened when the KGB was concerned about getting its "diplomats" and others back from the US. Just look up Igor Ivanov/Frederick Barghoorn (1963), Valdik Enger/Rudolf Chernyayev/Jay Crawford (1978), and Gennadiy Zakharov/Nicholas Daniloff (1986). The KGB took hostages then. So does former KGB officer Putin.
Second, although it's wonderful that Griner has been freed, we all know why she, a recently-imprisoned hostage, was given priority over Paul Whelan and Marc Fogel (the latter has not even been designated as "wrongfully detained" by the Biden Administration). It is because, in contrast to these latter two hostages, Griner had powerful political forces agitating for her release, forces whose support is critical to any Democrat seeking re-election.
Putin would not trade Bout for three Americans, or even two, and was counting on the fact that the Administration would eventually buckle because, unlike Putin, Democrats have to worry about the next election. Russian state media is wildly celebrating the Bout-Griner trade as a Russian victory, and for once, the Russian media is not lying.
It's very regrettable, but what's done is done. The question now is: what can be done to free Paul Whelan and Marc Fogel?
In the short term, the answer is probably: not much. I do, however, have a suggestion for the longer term. There is one US ally -- Ukraine -- who does have a lot of Russian prisoners, and has successfully traded someone Putin desperately wanted back, pro-Russian oligarch Viktor Medvechuk, for a large number of Ukrainian prisoners of war. Additional high-value prisoners will almost certainly fall into Ukrainian hands, and perhaps they could be persuaded to trade for Whelan and Fogel as well -- for a consideration. Certain military equipment comes to mind.
We live in an asymmetrical world. The Russian leadership, because of its brutality and inhumanity, can get away with taking hostages to spring their own criminals and spies from Western jails. We can't do that, but we can engage in asymmetric behavior ourselves. I'll leave it to the Administration to decide just what could be done, but there are plenty of areas where the Russians can be made to pay a price for their hostage-taking. This would balance the books by creating a new arithmetic, and improve chances for the release of our remaining hostages.
Jon, I don't know that she even has a base. I suspect that most Democrats are fed up with her, especially those who will vote in the primary, and she's not MAGA enough for MAGA Republicans and not conservative enough for what used to be called Republicans. She certainly has not compiled a Senate record that would garner the support of anyone! Her positions are sometimes loopy, and not consistent with Dems. I can't see her running as a third party candidate, though dumber things have happened. I agree with Dave -- she seems to have "groomed" herself for a position outside electoral politics.
Here is the note from Alice Schaffer Smith regarding actions steps you can take:
URGENT CALL TO ACTION: contact Senator Schumer's, Murkowski, Romney, Sinema, Collins, Manchin and Portman's offices and reach their chief of staff or legislative staff and explain why Moore v Harper will destroy our Constitution and it is imperative for them to cross the aisle and stand up for WE, THE PEOPLE this week. H.R. 5746 won't hurt any Republicans and gives every American the same rights.
Phone numbers are available on each state's page or on your senator's website
Senators Suite & Telephone List (PDF)
A U.S. Capitol Switchboard operator can also connect you directly with the Senate office. (202) 224-3121
PRIMO LEVI summed it up: "If not now, when?"
Fight for your democracy. Don't just LIKE what Robert, Heather Cox or I or others write.
Thank you
Here is the email from Alice Schaffer Smith with background information on H.R. 5746:
Moore v Harper sets the State Legislature of North Carolina against its own State Supreme Court and its Constitution on the ridiculous proposition that Article 1.4 of the US Constitution grants exclusive jurisdiction to State Legislatures to the exclusion of its own State Constitution or its Supreme Court when Congress has failed to act under Article 1.4 to determine times, places and manner. of elections.
Listening to the Supreme Court hearing made me realize how imperative it is to pass H.R. 5746 this week in the U.S Senate to remove any chance that our Justices would revoke 233 years of precedence on this bizarre interpretation of the meaning of the election clause and grant essentially unlimited power to State Legislatures to call the shots on its own elections.
So here is a teach in for those who haven't followed HR 5746 or how the Supreme Court has been stripping Congress of its authority granted under Article 1.4, AND the 14th, 15th, 19th and other voting rights amendments and deferring to State Legislatures since 2010 under the Roberts' Court:
----------
In January the Senators filibustered H.R. 5746, The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, thus preventing the Senate from exercising its authority under Article 1.4 to debate and then vote on a uniform federal election law. Under a rule of the Senate and not under the Constitution, a super majority of 60 votes is needed for the Senate to pass most legislation, even though the Congress is empowered to pass legislation under Article 1.4, the 14th and 15th Amendments without reference to any super majority filibuster rule. Thus California with 39m population has 2 Senators and the 5 least populous states have a total of 3.5m voters and 10 Senators plus the filibuster.
When it comes to passing voting rights, isn’t it ironic that voting rights advocates are asking the Senate to pass a uniform election code for voting to ensure 1 person 1 vote and every vote counted, yet the Senate itself does not have 1 Senator 1 vote.
Next: consider the role of the Supreme Court in ruling against Congress’ exercise of its powers under Articles 1.4, the 14th and 15th and subsequent voting right Amendments.
The Supreme Court has stated that unless Congress enacts specific election laws, times, places and manner of voting shall be determined by individual state legislatures.
Congress has the power to set uniform national standards for times, places and manner of voting under the Constitution of the United States of America. Article 1.4 grants to each State Legislature the power to set the times, places and manner of holding elections for US Senators and Representatives, “but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.....”
Congress enacted and then amended 8 times, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 so that: “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure, shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color” which purposes were subsequently expanded to include discrimination based on national origin, disabilities, etc.
The VRA’s greatest early impact was in its pre-clearance requirement for Federal Court or Justice Department approval before jurisdictions that had historically discriminated could change voting rules, processes, or procedures. One result: By 1969, Mississippi’s Black voter registration rate increased to 59% from 6%.
Nonetheless the US Supreme Court has been gutting and continues to gut the Voting Rights Act of 1965:
● Citizens United v FEC (2010) removed Federal campaign restrictions on Corporations and Unions, unleashing unlimited and undisclosed (foreign) money into politics
● Shelby County v Holder (2013) held that the pre-clearance formula is unconstitutional. Impact: 1688 polling places closed in previously covered States; 30 million voters purged from voting rolls, restrictive voting laws such as strict voter ID laws enacted in at least 19 states:
● Rucho v Common Cause (2019) ruled that state laws permitting partisan (not racial) gerrymandering are “beyond the reach of the federal courts.”
● Brnovich v DNC (2021) upheld an Arizona law to stop people from collecting ballots to deliver to precincts, which disproportionately impacted indigenous peoples; and to stop counting ballots from people who voted in the wrong precinct.
● Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless (NEOCH) v. Husted (2016): by not granting certiorari upheld Ohio’s perfection rule allowing insignificant errors on the outside envelope of a provisional ballot to disqualify the vote of a properly registered voter - one was a blind 84 year old voter prohibited from voting, clearly a denial of the right to vote in contravention of the rights of disabled voters to be able to vote.
Thus State Legislatures have gained significant power after the Supreme Court overruled federal oversight of State and Local jurisdictions enacted under Article 1.4 and the 14th and subsequent voting related Amendments.
In January the House passed H.R.5746 – a federal uniform set of laws to ensure inter alia:
● uniform laws setting times, places and manner of voting:
● paper ballots for all voters to ensure post-election audits and accuracy;
● preventing the horrific 3 hours in line to vote in Georgia just on Friday by reducing to a maximum of 30 minutes the waiting time in line to vote, early voting, no excuse vote by mail,
● franking of the vote-by-mail envelope,
● adequate funding to the States to implement the mandates of H.R. 5746,
● a national holiday for election day,
● nonpartisan independent redistricting commissions in every state,
● no foreign money in our elections through clean money provisions,
● the Native American Voting Rights Act and reinstating the preclearance provisions of the John R Lewis Act with defined standards thus ending the impacts of Shelby, Rucho, NEOCH and Brnovich.
In this October 2022 Term the US Supreme Court has taken up 2 significant voting rights cases which likely will further result in its evisceration of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ("VRA") and grant even more power to state legislatures.
Moore v Harper : By June 2023 SCOTUS is likely to grant North Carolina’s state legislature (and other states) power under Article 1.4 to determine times place and manners of elections even if held unconstitutional under the terms of North Carolina’s State Constitution, making state legislatures superior to the oversight of their State Supreme Courts.
Merrill v Mulligan : The Court is likely to support Alabama’s position that racial consideration in redistricting is impermissible, notwithstanding that eliminating the impact of racial segregation is an underlying purpose of the VRA. Keep in mind that the Roberts’ Court had no problem finding political gerrymandering by state legislatures to be constitutional in Rucho because it is not up to the Supreme Court to question the political decisions of an equal branch of government.
H.R. 5746 will not be re-enacted by the new House of Representatives on January 2023.
To protect the right to vote it is imperative to end the filibuster of H.R. 5746 this week: debate and vote on the Freedom to Vote: John R Lewis Voting Rights Act.
Alice Schaffer Smith
Executive Director
National Voter Corps
850 Webster Street #520
Palo Alto, CA 94301
www.nationalvotercorps.org
a non profit project under the Social Good Fund
I’m so tired of the Democrats always having to play defense against ridiculous assertions made by the media who seem driven more by getting clicks and eyeballs rather than facts. The media today in some reporting is responsible for fueling the MAGA base and providing them with creditably. A perfect example of this is the comments about leaving a marine behind during the hostage swap. Here are the facts. Paul Whelan was court-martialed and dishonorably discharged for larceny, dereliction(s) of duty, lying, using someone else's social security number, and writing 10 bad checks.He was not a war hero. This information was not being reported in any detail by the mainstream media. Also not mentioned was the fact that Trump and John Bolton could not bring Whelan home after he was taken hostage during the Trump Administration. There are always two sides to every story. I just want the media to call it as it is.
Kyrsten Sinema Says She Will Leave the Democratic Party
The senator is registering as an independent, noting that she “never fit perfectly in either national party.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/09/us/politics/kyrsten-sinema-democrats.html
My comment: She has no political future: She is too crazy for Democrats, not crazy enough for Republicans. Good thing Warnock won!!!
Let's keep in mind that Nate Cohn is one of the over-educated otherwise-unemployables at the Nation's Finest Fishwrap - the New York Times.
Warnocke, Griner, lower inflation, robust consumer spending and labor markets, same-sex marriage legislation, Ukraine taking the fight to Russian soil.......Repeat after me: I WILL NOT GET TIRED OF WINNING. I WILL NOT GET TIRED OF WINNING...
Robert, your comments regarding the election stories (yes, “stories?) from the media are excellent. Groups like Activate America https://www.activateamerica.vote/ and Focus for Democracy https://www.focus4democracy.org/ really are doing the heavy lifting of putting together data for maximum returns on get out the vote and more. The kind of deeper analysis they demonstrated during a Zoom call I participated in this fall really spoke to me about the efforts we need to pay attention to while turning away from the media headlines. In particular, I read the piece you wrote about indicating Georgia Republican voters may not have voted for Walker, etc. As I read it, there seemed to be more questions than good information. Let’s face it, the press is regretfully always so damn eager to have us believe they have the answers/scoop.
We must take your advice and move well beyond the media’s quick rush to show us they know best. Pundits are they.
Many scholars in linguistics, political science, sociology, and neuroscience psychology identify as Democrats yet the DNC historically appears to have been weak in developing effective messaging and conducting deeper dives into the pulse of the electorate.
Through time, political preferences, and priorities migrate. Furthermore, the Republicans have been masterful at creating content that captures emotional reflexes (fear and anger), resulting in Pavlovian responses and deafening other, more complicated debates.
We need to invest in the science of messaging and marketing to be agile and responsive to the pulse of the electorate.
When I saw the headline in Nate Cohn’s latest clickbait, my first thought was that the Republican Party is looking a lot less solid and monolithic. That can only be good news.
Robert - this may be old news to many but I just finished listening to Rachel Maddow’s “Ultra” series. It is astoundingly well written, researched and produced, and should be mandatory reading for every US citizen. As a history major in college, my course work ended just short of WW 1, and I am embarrassed to say that I haven’t put enough effort into filling in intervening events. Ultra does so - and it is a lesson in current events. Rachel also closes by underlining how individuals and groups of alert and committed citizens ultimately turned the tables on the infiltration of our government by Nazis and other fascist adherents.
One of my pet peeves is how statistics are so often misused and misleading in the media and other sources. Years ago while my husband was working on his Masters, I was working at an experimental college which offered a course titled "How to Lie with Statistics". It taught statistics but also how statistics can be twisted easily into lies. One that bothers me a lot is the statistics including only the two major parties. 30% of Republicans believe such and such. Since Republicans are around 25-30% of the voting population that means only 9% of the voters have that position. Doesn't sound so daunting, does it? I have seen more of the media reporting on the Independents which is around 40% of the voting population giving a much more comprehensive and accurate picture of what is happening. We, the People, all of us this time!
Cree Hardegree (about whom I know nothing but this) posted a piece on FB about the Warnock win that is long, but SO spot-on I think your readers will appreciate it and be well advised! As a Californian who wrote a ton of postcards to GA, but took CA races somewhat for granted, I stand chastised. Check it out!
Dear Robert, I did not receive your newsletter yesterday and have been worrying about you for 24 hours! After starting each day with you for several years I assumed you’d had a heart attack! Today’s came through, thankfully. Take care of yourself - you are an important part of my life.
Carole Turner-Record, London, UK
I have hesitated to talk about the deal to trade Brittney Griner for Viktor Bout, because, as a retired Foreign Service Officer who was involved in similar situations during the Cold War, I understand how few options the Biden Administration actually has, and how difficult their situation is: they are being forced to trade international criminals like Bout for hostages. But some things must be said.
First, the Griner-Bout trade is a terrible deal. It was highly asymmetrical. Trading a WNBA star who effectively committed no crime at all for a person who is responsible for selling arms all over the world, and undoubtedly caused the deaths of thousands of innocents, is not making a deal -- it is paying ransom. It shows weakness to Putin, which is always bad since it could lead to further miscalculations on his part.
In particular, despite the naysaying in Washington, it does indeed tempt people like Putin into taking additional hostages. The record is quite clear on this, if you go back to the Cold War, and track what happened when the KGB was concerned about getting its "diplomats" and others back from the US. Just look up Igor Ivanov/Frederick Barghoorn (1963), Valdik Enger/Rudolf Chernyayev/Jay Crawford (1978), and Gennadiy Zakharov/Nicholas Daniloff (1986). The KGB took hostages then. So does former KGB officer Putin.
Second, although it's wonderful that Griner has been freed, we all know why she, a recently-imprisoned hostage, was given priority over Paul Whelan and Marc Fogel (the latter has not even been designated as "wrongfully detained" by the Biden Administration). It is because, in contrast to these latter two hostages, Griner had powerful political forces agitating for her release, forces whose support is critical to any Democrat seeking re-election.
Putin would not trade Bout for three Americans, or even two, and was counting on the fact that the Administration would eventually buckle because, unlike Putin, Democrats have to worry about the next election. Russian state media is wildly celebrating the Bout-Griner trade as a Russian victory, and for once, the Russian media is not lying.
It's very regrettable, but what's done is done. The question now is: what can be done to free Paul Whelan and Marc Fogel?
In the short term, the answer is probably: not much. I do, however, have a suggestion for the longer term. There is one US ally -- Ukraine -- who does have a lot of Russian prisoners, and has successfully traded someone Putin desperately wanted back, pro-Russian oligarch Viktor Medvechuk, for a large number of Ukrainian prisoners of war. Additional high-value prisoners will almost certainly fall into Ukrainian hands, and perhaps they could be persuaded to trade for Whelan and Fogel as well -- for a consideration. Certain military equipment comes to mind.
We live in an asymmetrical world. The Russian leadership, because of its brutality and inhumanity, can get away with taking hostages to spring their own criminals and spies from Western jails. We can't do that, but we can engage in asymmetric behavior ourselves. I'll leave it to the Administration to decide just what could be done, but there are plenty of areas where the Russians can be made to pay a price for their hostage-taking. This would balance the books by creating a new arithmetic, and improve chances for the release of our remaining hostages.
Once again, Ukraine comes to mind.
Sinema news just broke. Awaiting your comments on what Az voters can do about her defection.
What about the count the vote act which supposedly had bi-partisan support?
So appreciate your wise perspectives on things the msm blow out of proportion!
Jon, I don't know that she even has a base. I suspect that most Democrats are fed up with her, especially those who will vote in the primary, and she's not MAGA enough for MAGA Republicans and not conservative enough for what used to be called Republicans. She certainly has not compiled a Senate record that would garner the support of anyone! Her positions are sometimes loopy, and not consistent with Dems. I can't see her running as a third party candidate, though dumber things have happened. I agree with Dave -- she seems to have "groomed" herself for a position outside electoral politics.