Some comments on your points in this good article:
Yay Colorado Supreme Court!
If the worse happens and Biden can not finish his second term, I will not lose one minute of sleep over Harris becoming President. She is smart, tough, and experienced. At this point she already has more relevant experience than Obama did when he first set foot in the Oval Office. The Biden/Harris administration is full of smart people with experience and expertise who are listened to. Harris gets a bad rap. Undeservedly. I wonder why. Could it be her two X chromosomes and the amount of pigment in her skin?
On the subject of polls. Ever since the Great Polling Debacle of 2016, I have ignored the polling results and urge everyone else to do the same. There are several technical reasons why at this point in time the polls simply are not worth the paper they are printed on. There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and then there are polls. (With apologies to Samuel Clemens).
With MAGA it’s all about Trump. With Biden it’s not, it’s about him and his Administration. The Biden Administration gets things done for the reasons you outlined--smart, experienced people who know what they’re doing with a leader who listens to what they have to say and gives them credit for what they do. That is an important distinction between the two.
As I have spent the evening thinking about this, I find I agree with Chris Christie. We the voters, the people from whom all legitimate governing power in our system is derived, must be the ones who decide our future.
Asking Big Daddy Court to make things all nice again does nothing to deal with the problem of Trump and the anti-democratic movement he leads, not in the long run. If this decision is affirmed, it lets us off the hook and allows us to escape reponsibility for our own future.
While he may be off the ballot, there is every likelihood that this will solidify his leadership of MAGA and turn MAGA into a truly violent, insurrectionary movement. Such a decision could in fact be the flame that lights the fuse to the powder keg that is our contemporary politics.
If we are really a self-governing country, then WE have to decide that Trump loses. Kicking the can down the road with a court decision does not solve the real problem we face. That problem is that a significant section of the population is willing to support a man who tells them if he takes power that he will destroy this constitutional democratic republic. Removing him from the ballot does not resolve that. We can have a political war and defeat him - and MAGA politically - or we can have a civil war, which is what this decision points us toward.
The situation is now more difficult than it was 24 hours ago.
I don’t easily come to your conclusion that the courts disqualifying Trump would bring us closer to a civil war. If we are a nation governed by enforceable laws, it’s long past time that Trump is disqualified from holding office. Think of those who’ve been convicted and jailed for participating in the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol. If Trump does not regain the presidency, they face and more may accept the reality that they’ve broken laws and are paying the price.
Trump and the MAGA movement will spin Trump's victimhood and entitlement whether he’s disqualified through legal findings or loses at the ballot box. If he wins that’s another story, especially since his minions are doing everything possible to disenfranchise voters and preserve the built-in minority rule of the Electoral College and the U.S. Senate. What resistance will we then see?
I’ll be interested in what happens to Senators and U.S. Representatives who also collaborated in insurrection and haven’t been held accountable. I hope that we will vote out enough of them that we regain a governable majority and they will lose power. The defeated members will at least pay a political price. But will there be legal action to hold them accountable? If we regain a Democratic majority and hold the Senate and win the Presidency, will there be impetus to bring members of Congress to account?
And, what will happen in Red versus Blue states as this all plays out? We live in interesting times.
Added 12/20 9:05 a.m.
There’s another large group of Americans who are less tuned in to politics and culture wars and who go about their daily lives. Many of these folks are conservatives and may vote for Trump but aren’t going to partake in a civil war. If anything, they may help calm down their relatives and neighbors who are getting worked up about MAGA issues. People have families and kids to support and care for. They have jobs and careers, and often those trump Trump.
It seems to me that the one benefit of having Trump off the ballot is that his MAGA base voters will stay home and not vote. That will help to ensure Democratic victories. These cult members are wedded to him; they will not find any of the other Republican candidates to be acceptable, just based on their fervent support of him.
It's a very complicated situation, that's for sure. The argument Trump should be held to the same standards as his J6 supporters is already being dealt with in the J6 case Jack Smith is prosecuting - the other big decision the court has to deal with.
We need his conviction in the J6 case and his rejection by the voters. We can't look to anything for a short cut.
A civil war now would make what happened 150 years ago look like a walk in the park. It wouldn't be geographically delineated with a "front" like last time.
And yet, shouldn’t the reading of the 14th Amendment he adhered to by our courts? Otherwise, what is the purpose of the Constitution? This is not about the courts making a political move… it is the very opposite. It is our system finally adhering to the very words written in our Constitution. That is what it is supposed to do. Nothing more. Nothing less. Anything else IS political. The reading of the 14th amendment is exceedingly clear in its’ wording, and we saw Trump (an officer who swore to uphold the Constitution and defend the United States) mount an insurrection on live TV. Are we as a nation to shrink back from upholding our Constitution (!) because we fear the very people who want to destroy it? Absolutely not.
But, also, courts I think have a responsibility to interpret and change laws if necessary beyond the Constitution because, like all documents, its meaning is at least in part derived from the context in which it was written. That's why the 2nd Amendment giving some rights to bear arms to citizens needs to be revised/updated in its interpretations to incorporate semi-automatic weapons, background checks, etc. that weren't even thought of at the time that Amendment was written ...
No, courts are not empowered to "change laws." They are entilted to interpret the law and apply the law to the facts. Beyond that, they are empowered to find the law constitutional or unconstitonal. Revising the constitutional requires an amendment.
Sorry -- I should have been more precise. As in Dobbs, SCOTUS made a ruling that states have the right to decide their abortion policies; they negated federal oversight in the form of Roe which, as you know, had been a law in effect for ~ 50 years that protected some sort of abortion rights nationally. In that sense, they certainly changed the law for millions of people who had been able to access reproductive health care under Roe regardless of how it might have been constrained in their state. Now, there is no such protection; I don't know what else to call it other than an effect on laws. This fits under the broad rubric of interpreting the Constitution, of course, but an interpretation has the same practical effect as a 'law' decided by a legislative body.
I always feel like the words "well regulated militia" refer to the right to bear arms under some regulation and with an eye to providing for a citizen militia and training for the sake of safety and skill. It doesn't say we must provide for every loony to carry whatever they want and aim it at anyone they feel threatened by in their paranoia.
Yep. But you can assume safely that few people have actually read the 2nd Amendment, looked into the history of it and what people said they were intending when it was crafted, and then analyzed all that to come to a rational conclusion ...
I too was worried that a court decision barring Trump as a candidate would trigger violence among his followers. But that can't be a reason not to affirm the CO SC decision proclaiming the truth about him.
Short term - we've got to do everything we can to keep President Biden in office and turn Washington blue. Long term - we must as a country, address the significant number of folks who seem to be saying they're going to vote for Trump no matter what.
That will include addressing the corrupt actions of cynical power grabbers allowed by Citizens United AND reaching out to ordinary citizens who have been bamboozled into believing that the GOP agenda is good for them and their families.
Also, law enforcement agencies need to continue their work to contain the MAGA followers who are engaged in physical violence. AND we must address how social media makes it possible to "yell fire in a crowded theater" that is now the size of the world, and imperative that the right to "free speech" be interpreted in that light.
Boy do I like that. I’m sick and tired of being scared of The Donald and Co. The Donald especially is a coward at heart and coward’s resort to bullying. I detest bullies.
I totally agree. SCOTUS should impartially apply the law to Trump. In this case, if that means keeping him off the ballot, that's the law. Whatever his MAGA allies do in response, they will do knowing we are a country of laws not men. This is the healthiest outcome for democracy in America.
I agree that no court decision can exempt us from our civil responsibility.Trump must be defeated by all of us at the ballot box and in any way we can before then. Each of us who find MAGA to be repugnant have to reclaim our voices and not become prisoners of reacting to reactionary rhetoric. A better understanding of the many positive accomplishments of the Biden Administration and an ability to articulate them in ordinary conversation would help. That said, it is a relief to finally have Trump called out by a court of law for his actions. If we truly want a civil society we are all going to have to work for it.
And the NYT is not helping the situation and looks like they are eagerly looking forward to the newsworthyness of such a violent conclusion. WaPo is right there with them.
We’re trying to counter that and so far we’ve seen many more articles by respected journalists warning about Trump as a clear and present danger to democracy. I am hopeful that we can influence MSM coverage.
Headlines are important, yes. Too many (and I have been guilty of doing this too) decide to read or not read an article based on the headline. One has to choose somehow.
Plus, there are those who don't delve very far into politics anyway and may be the most persuadable who may also be the ones who get most of their "news" from a quick scan of the headlines, and may also be more prone to jump on bandwagons due to lacking any real in depth knowledge of their own.
Consider not cancelling. Per Robert's post, I think it was yesterday, we can push back against mis- and disinformation only if we do so where it's being disseminated.
That pesky Constitution. What a hassle to follow its clauses. You're so right, TCinLA!
Critical Thinking 101: How is the alternative in any scenario better for democracy and human rights? I see you saying that when fascists wield threats then established fact should be denied, the rule of law cast aside, and the Constitution ignored. That's appeasement. It didn't work before and won't work now.
No, that's not what I am saying. You might want to take that remedial Reading Comprehension 102 course. There's no appeasement in what I am saying. To the contrary, I'm saying we need to take up our responsibilities that we have cast aside over the past 50+ years, and become effective citizens again, the source of all political power here.
It's not either/or. It's both/and. I do phone banking to cure ballots, GOTV, and lots to pressure members of Congress and corporations. In my family of 4 there are some 75 arrests for nonviolent civil disobedience in service of social and environmental justice.
I stand by my reading of your position. Obeying in advance in what you're advocating. Authoritarianians rely for their power on people doing that.
I respectfully disagree. When Judge Luettig and Professor Tribe raised this issue, I felt that what was lacking was a finding by some authority that the Defendant had participated in an insurrection. The CO verdict did just that. The applicability of the prohibition that followed was, to me, self-evident, although the lower court thought otherwise. While I would have preferred that the Defendant was soundly defeated in 2024, the suit in CO (filed by Republicans and Independents by the way, not Democrats) opened Pandora's box.
I suggest we all take a deep breath and let this play out. It will surely go to the Supreme Court, which will decide it one way or the other, rightly or wrongly. We will then live with the consequences. Last night on MSNBC, Judge Luettig said as much. While he believes the CO decision is unassailable, he also believes in the Supreme Court, and the finality of any decision they reach. While many will disagree with whatever the Supremes decide, it will be final, at least as it relates to the Defendant and 2024.
The lawyer in me says that the Colorado court (and Robert B. Hubbell) was right, and that Trump cannot occupy federal office. The political side of me says that it would be better to beat him at the ballot box. But there was a reason for Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment, and we would traduce those whose deaths, wounds and illness led to the need for it if we ignore it now.
I just read this news. Dealing with threats to democracy is the responsibility of citizens. The courts can aid in the defense, but, as we see in many cases, aren't always where we need them to be. ... As a citizen of Massachusetts, I'm continuing to volunteer with and contribute to the Democratic Party of my native state, Wisconsin.
Yes, we have our responsibility to continue to demonstrate to anyone who will listen that Donald Trump is unfit to be President and a great danger to our democracy BUT we must also have faith in our courts to uphold the laws that have been passed. The Colorado SC has ruled correctly and we, the citizenry, those who worship Trump and those who despise him, have to recognize and respect their ruling. I revel that this body has said the unvarnished truth and ruled on it. That's how it is supposed to work.
Agreeing with Robert, I strongly suspect the US SC will protect Trump simply because its members are being paid by right-wing donors to do so. As you can see this citizen already suspects the justices of our court of last appeal have a political and personal economic agenda buoyed by the simple greed of Justices like Thomas. His actions are a disgrace and if the Republicans need to impeach anyone in Federal employ.... And while we are here we must recognize the actions of Senator Mitch McConnell when he used Senatorial shenanigans to pack the SC with these partisans. If the SC has lost the respect of the citizenry part of the blame for that rests with McConnell's actions.
As to the NYT, if it continues in its present direction it will soon be in the check-out line at the local supermarket right next to the NE. Its desire for "Clicks" will be its ruination.
I believe Mitch was in a large part the brains behind a long term strategy going back over 30 years to seat very conservative judges in as many open positions as possible in all the lower courts because if you can determine the pool from which higher courts are chosen, you eventually determine a ruling majority of higher and higher courts. A similar strategy applies to state house and senate seats. Rule those and you change state laws, etc. For that very reason we should all pay close attention to every election down to our county and school boards... no more can we assume a position is "too small to count".
Realistically, this SCOTUS hasn't supported Trump in most of his attempts before them, so it's not a sure thing either way in my opinion. I'm surprised that they haven't supported him in his efforts to bypass his trials in any number of ways, but they haven't so far.
Perhaps, just perhaps they realize the ramifications of letting him become as great a danger to the democracy as he seems to want to be. With the absolute power he claims what's to stop him from throwing them all out in the street or worse? The law protects us all, even SC justices.
Hope you're right. What you say makes sense; even if only self-interest is present in SCOTUS (or seems like specific justices are motivated primarily by that ...), they have to understand the danger of any president having no restrictions on his/her behavior.
To get good info regarding the law, try following Glenn Kirschner's "Justice Matters" You Tube videos. He was a D.C. prosecutor for over 20 years. By followint Glenn, I'm up to date on what TFG does and the legal implications thereof.
I tend to agree with your comments, except part of me thinks that at least several of the conservative members of SCOTUS may not be such big fans of Trump and would be perfectly happy to see him knocked off by Haley, a somewhat more buttoned-down conservative who will be friendly to the traditional Republican wealth-base without being so out-there on some issues. Eliminating Trump from ballots clears the path, perhaps, for an alternate. For SCOTUS to avoid confirming the Colorado decision, which I think any fair reading of the US Constitution requires, the majority is going to have to engage in intellectual dishonesty and hypocritical reasoning beyond what they have already done, and I can imagine that a Roberts, for example, might be happy not to do that for once in the interest of attempting to make Trump unelectable.
It is the voters (in groups) who are going to the courts to ban TFG from the ballot. There are lots of ways for voters to be involved in this process before the actual ballot!
I doubt you need to feel much anxiety on this account because it's likely the Supreme Court will strike this down. I don't think allowing a decision in the courts to help save democracy from a dictatorship is a bad thing though. Those who are die hard Trump supporters won't accept it, but they wouldn't accept any voted outcome that did the same thing. Those who are persuaded by court decisions need to hear that it was an insurrection, that Trump incited it, and that he is not above the law.
If the SCOTUS decides this cannot be determined at the state level, they will have given the lie to many of their prior positions. They may decide the conclusion on his connection to the insurrection needs to wait until his trial outcome.
Either way though, by court decisions or by vote, the exact same people who would promote civil war would do the same things if the next President is not who they want. I am inclined to believe there will be a rough year or two if Trump loses (as opposed to a rough forevermore), but that eventually there will be a strengthening of a more moral normality and our froggy neighbors will slowly heal from the brain tissue damage the conservative slow boil has induced. Their views will slowly, slowly, revert to pre-MAGA days and they will barely remember when they were pro-insurrection, begin to view the conspiracy theories they used to believe with more jaundiced eyes, and edge over out of the losers' camp.
We will always have a hard core of crazies and haters and greed driven power grabbers in denial as to their own mediocrity and how much they will lose if they "win". That too, is democracy. We must win this now by any of many fair means, and then double down on clearing up the delirium surrounding the media, ensuring we have farther reach with fair news sources, and ensuring we have better schools that teach how to really assess and evaluate sources.
If Trump is kept off the ballot in CO, and perhaps in other states, wouldn’t people be allowed to write in his name? If so, then it would be we, the people, making the final decision. Yes, being left off the ballot would be a huge handicap, but one of Trump’s own making, and one his supporters must deal with. So, the law, as clearly put forth in the Constitution, would be followed, and still people would be allowed to vote their preference.
And that’s really the key issue, Gina. It is of Trump’s own making! He started this crap and now should pay for it. After all, the 1000+ people who have been convicted as insurrectionists are already serving their time in prison or at their own homes because of his rhetoric. SCOTUS should not forget that tidbit.
To decide Trump's fate at the ballot box would be great, but an election is exactly the democratic process Trump tried to overthrow.
We can't avoid holding Trump accountable out of fear of what his supporters will do. Do you think they will gracefully accept a Trump loss at the ballot box?
I watched Kamalla with Lawrence tonight and yes, Robert, everyone needs to see how sharp and focussed she is. She could still run circles around anyone in the Senate, and the Repugs candidates? She'd blow them away just exhaling.
Just a short rant about Kamala Harris and her critics: What does it take to give up on the patriarchy? To continue to ingest all the poison with which it has saturated your lives and those of your ancestors and your children until maybe, at last, you refuse to take even another teeny tiny sip? Many in the older generation have only known a world thoroughly dominated by people who looked, talked, and behaved just like them -- if they were either White Males or submissive folks of any gender. Strong, intelligent women like Kamala Harris do not exist to make life easier for us. They do hope to make life better for us in the future; but in the short-term that often means they speak clearly, often, and strongly about what they know and believe and want to do -- just like they would do if they were members of the dominant class. They don't p-foot around and try to make the patriarchy 'feel safe'; most women have felt very UN-safe because of it; why should they acquiesce and fawn and promise to be good little girls who sit quietly with their ankles neatly crossed? With the long and bloody history of the patriarchy on exhibit daily: that we see so many women in particular who would prefer a leader more like Nikki Haley(?!!!) than Kamala Harris suggests that they have abandoned themselves, other women, and even their own daughters who should be able to count on them to be as strong and smart and brave as they can manage. Being from the South and living in Texas for 50+ years brings this starkly to my attention daily and it makes me enraged. One reason I don't worry about 'Biden's Age' is specifically because of Kamala Harris backing him up.
This 14th amendment decision is something. To me, the Constitution language is so plain...I can see where some might wish “it ain’t so,” but it’s there in black and white. Maybe it HELPS to not be a lawyer sometimes? I mean, how do you just ignore part of the Constitution ?
And speaking of plain English, every time I read again about January 6, something new hits me, and today it was these CO SC sentences: “Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling Senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes. These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection.”
There you have it. Whatever happens next, thank you, Colorado Supreme Court.
Last night at an annual holiday dinner with 3 of my friends of 20 years we eventually got around to talking about the election next year. I respect these women who also lean republican. The name Trump never entered our conversation so we had a very civil exchange which was refreshing. Here were the points unanimously made by all 3:
Biden is doing a disservice by running as he is mentally infirm and can't perform the duties of his office.
The dems have been protecting Hunter Biden while his dad has been in office and now that he is running again the dems are no longer protecting Hunter.
Gavin Newsom will pop in at the last minute as the candidate for president.
Kamala Harris is unfit to be president if Joe Biden has a health event.
I listened for a very long time and then let it rip in a very respectful way saying that what you might not know in your news bubble is that many, many people are in favor of the Biden/Harris ticket and have every confidence that Biden can and will carry on doing all of the great things he has done as our president! It was refreshing for me to speak my truth but also to be heard by my friends. It gave me great confidence moving forward into 2024 to speak up and speak out!!
Written here with a grateful heart to Robert, Jill and all of his subscribers who have given me the courage to speak my truth.
To your 3 Republican friends and the millions more like them in the FOX bubble..
If Joe Biden's record reflects a dottering, half senile leader, America definitely needs a bunch more of these...maybe these qualities should become criteria for running for high office. We'd be so much better off.
Oh dear. It sounds like you are in a red state or a red region, and bravo for you on holding your own. We evolved as social animals and at our instinctual level it feels like it's of survival level importance to be part of a group, so it's no small feat to speak up when what you believe and know to be true isn't what a majority around you are saying. Applause! (And hugs if they help).
I think the fact that people have the opinion of Biden that they do vis-a-vis his 'weaknesses' and not getting things done, etc., etc., is almost entirely the responsibility/fault of the media. Here's a response from The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/LaBolt-Memo_Biden-Harris-Agenda-Delivered-in-2023.pdf for at least the part about not getting things done yada yada. As far as the weakness thing -- if they think about what Biden's been doing all along globally as well as nationally, that just doesn't make any sense. All Trump managed to do was play golf, eat/drink, and Tweet. Biden's done some really amazing things diplomatically and continues to hold a punishing schedule.
I will do my best to share as widely as possible today’s newsletter and its sobering summary of corruption at the highest levels of our government.
The story of the insurrection has come to light, thanks in large part to the January 6 Committee investigation, a few incorruptible state election workers, and Jack Smith.
Today the Colorado Supreme Court cast the brightest light yet. Trump has been disqualified from running for office in Colorado.
Others individuals have been compelled to take action to change the course brought on by corrupt leadership.
Independent writers like Robert Hubbell, Jessica Craven, Heather Cox Richardson and Simon Rosenberg are dedicated to finding and sharing critical information to many thousands of readers. Many of us will also act as points of light.
I regret that the paper I have had delivered to my front door, for 40 years has not done its part in bringing the truth to light. If the coverage of polls continues to be distorted, and Biden excellent leadership continues to be downplayed, I will cancel my NYT subscription.
"Independent writers like Robert Hubbell, Jessica Craven, Heather Cox Richardson and Simon Rosenberg are dedicated to finding and sharing critical information to many thousands of readers. Many of us will also act as points of light." ~ Moore Leslie Joyce
Though over the next few weeks I would expect the High Court to find some off-ramp for overturning Colorado, I also expect the justices will strike down Trump’s immunity argument that would have exempted him from all the crimes he committed while he was president. Accordingly, Trump’s delay tactics will fail and the March 1/6 trial will proceed as scheduled, or at least close enough. Even more important, I encourage us not to underestimate the immeasurable significance of two court adjudications both finding Trump an insurrectionist. In my view, they will figure prominently in the outcome of the 2024 election, more so now likely to land on the very issue that drove Biden initially to run—the fight for the soul of democracy, for government “of, by, and for the people.”
It's the Headlines, stupid! Or at least that's what I feel. The journalists articles in the NY Times usually have the feel of verity. But the Headline Writers from the Times are barely getting a C+. I'm of the opinion that the Headline writers are more often than not the editors, not the journalists. Does anyone agree?
When your headline distorts the facts, slants the interpretation and leads readers to inaccurate conclusions, that's a flat out failure to communicate truthfully, accurately and thoroughly. There is a disturbing agenda behind such misleading headlines that goes beyond catching more reader dollars with clickbait. In a democracy of/for/by the people, supported by the rule of law, access to unbiased information is critical. MSM is losing touch with that obligation and responsibility - and increasingly we the public are forced to find alternative sources for truth, facts and accurate information.
Exactly. They set the tone. Not clear why the NYT (of all papers) should so often choose a headline that isn't even even-handed, but is actively negative to Biden. Maybe they think they are leaning over backwards to keep red state readers interested, but I disapprove.
Frequent Biden supporter flamethrowing and swearing at the NY Times is not going bring about change at the NY Times. It would be unfortunate if it did. (Constructive criticism might.) Nor are the attacks on the NY Times going to motivate more Biden supporters to help get out the vote. God help us if that's what it takes to motivate us. Nor does it help to attribute the comments of op-ed opinion columnists to the Times. We know, or at least should know, that's not how op-ed pieces work. They are opinions independent of the Times. The NY Times is actually our friend. We need to remember that. As the NY Times pointed out the other day, our media enemy is the army of trolls creating and proliferating deep fake social media memes that spread inane and deadly falsehoods about Joe Biden and Democrats. Our only antidote for that is getting out the vote. We need to figure out our narrative for doing that in the face of Joe Biden having to make very difficult to win choices on impossible issues like the war in the middle east and immigration. If our narrative is that the NY Times isn't being sensible or fair to us, well, the end isn't going to be pretty.
"The NY Times is actually our friend." I want to believe that. I believe a free press is critical to democracy. But look at the last couple of decades. The reporting on WMD in Iraq was essentially the laundering of Dick Cheney's propaganda, and helped get us into a war which I think is still undermining belief in our government. I believe the NYT also played a critical role in Trump's election with its over-the-top coverage of Hillary's emails. Their headlines forecast the "Red Wave" in 2022, and a recession in 2023. And now they seem to be doing it all over again with anti-Biden headlines. I find it hard to believe that all of this slant is coincidental.
Another way to frame the argument, is that "bias" is fundamental to the structure of all political discourse, political journalism and political action. It's unavoidable.
In this context, the NYTs has an anti-Biden bias. Since the MSM has a profound impact on the "public" mind it becomes propaganda for particular parties or leaders.
We need to push the propaganda in our direction. So, when we push back on the NYTs for their anti-Biden bias we should be encouraging them to write many more favorable articles about the president and put them above the fold on Pages 1-5.
It would be great to know how many votes Biden picks up with every positive MSM story, but we can be sure the cumulative effects is significant. In a race where every vote matters, the more positive spin we can squeeze out of the NYTs the merrier.
I've mentioned several times that the way to affect the NYT or WaPo is not to scream at them. Instead ask WHY they chose a particular headline and what effect they think a headline that doesn't actually mirror the content of the piece does. Or in the case like that Schmitz op Ed, ask why they decided to run a fact-free speculation as an op-Ed as opposed to many reasoned and fact-based Op-Eds they have published that you don't agree with but respect for their support for the argument. Support by pointing out which "facts" are indeed false or reasoning faulty. My favorite howler in that op-Ed was that trump must be moderate because he always said he was going to replace the ACA with something better. UH, 4 years with never a peep about anything better. If he had tried, one could argue about his plan. But there was never a plan. How can one call a totally empty promise a sign of underlying moderation?
Simply yowling at the NYT without any attempt to get them to explain is, well, your basic victim narrative.
I agree with you Sue, although I think chasing NY Times Op-ed pieces is going down a rabbit hole. People who read the NY Times Op-ed pieces either already feel the same way we do and know what we know about Op-ed falsehoods or they don't realize they are reading the NY Times. They mistakenly think they're reading the NY Post. Picked up the wrong paper. Op-ed readers are not the minds we need to change or persuade. We need to educate the people who believe what the trolls are sending them, and the people in the middle. Methinks that's not the NY Yimes Op-ed readers.
Hey Peter, I'm not certain I'm interpreting your :) correctly though it appears you are not defending your position – instead extending understanding of Susan Linehan's last comment on that which she "wasn't suggesting."
While I'm hardly a skilled communicator and surely haven’t credentials to analyze the exchange, it seems to me, you possess an admirable ability to listen. To choose receptivity over self-righteousness. Attributes I do not possess. Thank you.
And even if your intention was not as I interpret it, lesson learned for me just the same. ;)
Thank you, Jean, for your kind words. Yes, you’ve got it right! I absolutely agree with Susan! And, I think we all agree, including of course Rob, which he emphasizes often, that we need to help create a broad narrative that will get out the vote in support of Biden’s important accomplishments and ongoing work! Let’s focus our efforts on how we can move the needle with whatever portion of the middle has been susceptible to believing the false narratives spun by the MAGA crazies in their troll videos and on the debate stages! Let's not get caught up attacking each other! We have a great democracy and have elected an unusually wise man as our President. He’s willing and able to devote some of the best and most valuable years of his life to serving us and free people around the world. Let’s line up an electoral majority to make that happen!
You skip over the part where the NYTimes--that nation's newspaper of record--affects the national conversation about Joe Biden. On the one hand, you tell us that voters must set the narrative straight about Joe Biden, but we are "playing the victim" when we point out the false narrative in the NYTimes. Which is it?
I don't think NY Times readers' votes will be swayed by the Times' errant headlines and stories slighting Biden. Convincing Times' voteers of the danger of Trump and the beauty of Biden is not our challenge. We have a much bigger problem than I think we have if they're not with us or if they don't vote. They are our cohorts and find the Time's headlines annoying, just as we do. But, I fear attacking our friends, including the Times, is distracting us from the path to victory. We are in this together with the Times. They will endorse Biden! That will help us soilidify our base on election day. In the meantime, we need to win over non-Times readers!
I disagree about the ability of the Times to affect voters. See, e.g., Hillary Clinton's emails. The Times' coverage wasn't the only reason she lost, but the Times had a hand in her defeat by treating a non-story on an equal basis with Trump's collaboration with Russia and personal corruption. It is doing the same thing today: Hunter Biden = "I will be a dictator on day one", theft of national security documents, and $2 billion payoff to Jared Kushner, attempted coup, incited insurrection. There is no equivalency, but that is the premise of the Times' coverage--at least as measured by attenion, story placement, and narrative.
The Times is being irresponsible and reckless at a tenuous moment for democracy. There is no sin in demanding that the Times rise to the moment. If it doesn't, it may the the Times' last opportunity to do so.
I too disagree. I wrote why somewhere in this amazing maze of commentary... but, Mr. Peter, one thing that springs out at me is your characterization of feedback as "attack". I feel confident that the emails readers here send to the NY Times are and will remain respectful and factual. Disagreement is not always attack. For instance, I am disagreeing with you now but would be dismayed if you felt attacked.
You have short-term memory loss if you don't think the NYTs helped us to get here in the first place. There have been many studies done comparing the amount of stories and ton of Trump vs HRC. They lionized him and vilified her. Revisionist history does no one any good.
Well said. Chasing NYT headlines via letters to the editor is one important path of action, but the more important path is to do what Anat Shenker-Osorio says: Paint a beautiful tomorrow that the Democrats are working towards, and share that tomorrow with our base to engage them and with the middle to persuade them.
Certainly we need to be constructive in our feedback to the NY Times. I doubt very much that anyone here is doing any swearing at them (even if a little private word or two might escape one's lips during a morning read). This is a very constructive bunch, and many here do much more than write letters to the editors, reporters and about the headlines. That's one thing many do. That's all some can do. Try plugging up your sink under a drippy faucet if you don't think drops add up. I think it's all going to help.
The NY Times does choose what to print even if outside writers produce the copy. They could certainly print an opinion they disagree with and pair it with an opposing opinion replete with facts and references. When they don't do that they are failing at presenting unbiased information, and they are doing the work of the misinformation and disinformation army. When they misfire that way they are not acting as our friends.
They are, in fact, a bottom line driven business and it can't hurt for their customers to let them know what we would like to see in terms of truth and fairness and honest instead of misleading headlines. So long as we present our feedback with the intent of improving their functioning we are hardly being flame throwers. I think it will affect their choices and I believe (acknowledging this is very subjective) that it already is showing signs of doing so.
If opinions aren't built on perceived facts and the media doesn't affect people's opinions then what does it do? I believe it's important to address media bias. I believe it's important to increase voter registration and commitment. I believe it's important to identify and combat district gerrymandering. I believe it's important to remind people to write their emails to the NY Times respectfully, as you have, and to engage in thoughtful conversations here and elsewhere... and not just embrace the narrative that the NY Times is being fair, but to make it so!
Thanks!! And thanks to the Colorado Supreme Court! I don’t know what the NYT is up to anymore!
I am worried though that the Biden administration’s closeness to Israel is really hurting them. The destruction of Gaza is indefensible and they should be saying that loud and clear, not in the soft diplomatic way they are nudging Netanyahu. The standing of the US in general is suffering in the world. We are on the wrong side of history here.
“ The destruction of Gaza is indefensible and they should be saying that loud and clear, not in the soft diplomatic way they are nudging Netanyahu.” —
The “destruction of Gaza” is a byproduct of attacking Hamas. Hamas placed military installations within or adjacent to civilian institutions and people’s homes – a war crime. Attacking Hamas has therefore involved collateral civilian damage.
I disagree, have you read today's headlines... The UN is trying to rewrite their policy in order to garnish US support. I believe the Biden administration's stance is taking us in the right direction in what is an extremely complicated situation without easy solutions. Just imagine the mess it would be if our former president were handling this situation. It's just unfortunate that this is creating division in the Dems & being utilized by the right to present a false narrative.
I can appreciate the journalistic challenge that community faces after years of training to present both sides of a story. Fox News co-opted the philosophy coining their 3 word motto, "Fair and Balanced" although their news coverage cannot even sarcastically be considered that. It is another 3 word phrase easily remembered, repeated and understood by a wide swath of the population because that's as deep as they are.
But, I digress. The real issue here is far less challenging than the mainstream media would like us to believe. Covering "both sides" is applicable and reasonable when both sides have a valid philosophical underpinning to their view, not one which is antithetical to our very way of life and based on an aggregation of lies. Balanced coverage in this day and age would be to cover Trump and the minions for what they are...the reincarnation of fascism. And it should include a definition of what fascism actually is and how it is embodied in the spirit, intent and actions of Donald Trump. Real and informative balanced coverage should be a call for national outrage and to express that outrage every day from now until we all step into the voting booth. It is the right time for this out of disgust but also out of necessity.
Thank you, Pro Publica journalists, for the investigative work respecting the corruption of Supreme Court justices, particularly Mr. Thomas. Once again, the headline writer mistakenly wrote that the corruption process has been “long and slow.” Indeed, the evidence reveals that Mr. Thomas has long been the recipient of corrupting generosity of his wealthy supporters (who have personally benefited from their “gift giving”); but as you point out, there was no delay in responding to Mr. Thomas’ overt, but apparently “delicate,” solicitation of the supplemental means of supporting the lifestyle to which he felt entitled.
This new report simply adds to the growing amount of empirical information available about the sleaziness and character defects of multiple members of the current court. This information together with the justices’ recent publication of a glaringly weak “code of ethics” by which they disclaimed any intent to be legally bound, makes it all the more urgent that Congress exercise its Constitutional authority to enact a mandatory and enforceable code of ethics applicable to Supreme Court members and personnel. It is noteworthy that other recent reporting revealed that the justices do not - and cannot reasonably- trust one another (in that particular instance about the process of creating and publishing the Dobbs decision). It is therefore no surprise that the public has compelling reason to believe that this particular collection of flawed humanity constitutes an illegitimate court.
Floridians Protecting Freedom is an organization in Florida that has been collecting signatures on petitions. The purpose is to include a referendum on the ballot asking voters whether abortion should be legal in Florida. They received twice as many petitions as they needed. Twice as many. Hopefully a harbinger of things to come.
I have now watched VP Harris twice, first last night and again via the link (thank you, Mr. Hubbell). I do not understand why people, including smart, successful women, have a strong negative reaction to Ms. Harris. Perhaps Sky777 is correct; it is the color of her skin and chromosomes. Perhaps it is that like most VP's her work (and the work of the smart, accomplished Second Gentleman) does not get enough coverage. I am a huge fan of Lawrence O'Donnell. Now, maybe that will change.
Some comments on your points in this good article:
Yay Colorado Supreme Court!
If the worse happens and Biden can not finish his second term, I will not lose one minute of sleep over Harris becoming President. She is smart, tough, and experienced. At this point she already has more relevant experience than Obama did when he first set foot in the Oval Office. The Biden/Harris administration is full of smart people with experience and expertise who are listened to. Harris gets a bad rap. Undeservedly. I wonder why. Could it be her two X chromosomes and the amount of pigment in her skin?
On the subject of polls. Ever since the Great Polling Debacle of 2016, I have ignored the polling results and urge everyone else to do the same. There are several technical reasons why at this point in time the polls simply are not worth the paper they are printed on. There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and then there are polls. (With apologies to Samuel Clemens).
With MAGA it’s all about Trump. With Biden it’s not, it’s about him and his Administration. The Biden Administration gets things done for the reasons you outlined--smart, experienced people who know what they’re doing with a leader who listens to what they have to say and gives them credit for what they do. That is an important distinction between the two.
Definitely think Harris’ two XX chromosome do not help. I have been working to change one mind at a time about Harris. We all should do the same.
As I have spent the evening thinking about this, I find I agree with Chris Christie. We the voters, the people from whom all legitimate governing power in our system is derived, must be the ones who decide our future.
Asking Big Daddy Court to make things all nice again does nothing to deal with the problem of Trump and the anti-democratic movement he leads, not in the long run. If this decision is affirmed, it lets us off the hook and allows us to escape reponsibility for our own future.
While he may be off the ballot, there is every likelihood that this will solidify his leadership of MAGA and turn MAGA into a truly violent, insurrectionary movement. Such a decision could in fact be the flame that lights the fuse to the powder keg that is our contemporary politics.
If we are really a self-governing country, then WE have to decide that Trump loses. Kicking the can down the road with a court decision does not solve the real problem we face. That problem is that a significant section of the population is willing to support a man who tells them if he takes power that he will destroy this constitutional democratic republic. Removing him from the ballot does not resolve that. We can have a political war and defeat him - and MAGA politically - or we can have a civil war, which is what this decision points us toward.
The situation is now more difficult than it was 24 hours ago.
I don’t easily come to your conclusion that the courts disqualifying Trump would bring us closer to a civil war. If we are a nation governed by enforceable laws, it’s long past time that Trump is disqualified from holding office. Think of those who’ve been convicted and jailed for participating in the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol. If Trump does not regain the presidency, they face and more may accept the reality that they’ve broken laws and are paying the price.
Trump and the MAGA movement will spin Trump's victimhood and entitlement whether he’s disqualified through legal findings or loses at the ballot box. If he wins that’s another story, especially since his minions are doing everything possible to disenfranchise voters and preserve the built-in minority rule of the Electoral College and the U.S. Senate. What resistance will we then see?
I’ll be interested in what happens to Senators and U.S. Representatives who also collaborated in insurrection and haven’t been held accountable. I hope that we will vote out enough of them that we regain a governable majority and they will lose power. The defeated members will at least pay a political price. But will there be legal action to hold them accountable? If we regain a Democratic majority and hold the Senate and win the Presidency, will there be impetus to bring members of Congress to account?
And, what will happen in Red versus Blue states as this all plays out? We live in interesting times.
Added 12/20 9:05 a.m.
There’s another large group of Americans who are less tuned in to politics and culture wars and who go about their daily lives. Many of these folks are conservatives and may vote for Trump but aren’t going to partake in a civil war. If anything, they may help calm down their relatives and neighbors who are getting worked up about MAGA issues. People have families and kids to support and care for. They have jobs and careers, and often those trump Trump.
It seems to me that the one benefit of having Trump off the ballot is that his MAGA base voters will stay home and not vote. That will help to ensure Democratic victories. These cult members are wedded to him; they will not find any of the other Republican candidates to be acceptable, just based on their fervent support of him.
Lettuce Prey, to quote a well known film character.
It's a very complicated situation, that's for sure. The argument Trump should be held to the same standards as his J6 supporters is already being dealt with in the J6 case Jack Smith is prosecuting - the other big decision the court has to deal with.
We need his conviction in the J6 case and his rejection by the voters. We can't look to anything for a short cut.
A civil war now would make what happened 150 years ago look like a walk in the park. It wouldn't be geographically delineated with a "front" like last time.
And yet, shouldn’t the reading of the 14th Amendment he adhered to by our courts? Otherwise, what is the purpose of the Constitution? This is not about the courts making a political move… it is the very opposite. It is our system finally adhering to the very words written in our Constitution. That is what it is supposed to do. Nothing more. Nothing less. Anything else IS political. The reading of the 14th amendment is exceedingly clear in its’ wording, and we saw Trump (an officer who swore to uphold the Constitution and defend the United States) mount an insurrection on live TV. Are we as a nation to shrink back from upholding our Constitution (!) because we fear the very people who want to destroy it? Absolutely not.
But, also, courts I think have a responsibility to interpret and change laws if necessary beyond the Constitution because, like all documents, its meaning is at least in part derived from the context in which it was written. That's why the 2nd Amendment giving some rights to bear arms to citizens needs to be revised/updated in its interpretations to incorporate semi-automatic weapons, background checks, etc. that weren't even thought of at the time that Amendment was written ...
No, courts are not empowered to "change laws." They are entilted to interpret the law and apply the law to the facts. Beyond that, they are empowered to find the law constitutional or unconstitonal. Revising the constitutional requires an amendment.
Sorry -- I should have been more precise. As in Dobbs, SCOTUS made a ruling that states have the right to decide their abortion policies; they negated federal oversight in the form of Roe which, as you know, had been a law in effect for ~ 50 years that protected some sort of abortion rights nationally. In that sense, they certainly changed the law for millions of people who had been able to access reproductive health care under Roe regardless of how it might have been constrained in their state. Now, there is no such protection; I don't know what else to call it other than an effect on laws. This fits under the broad rubric of interpreting the Constitution, of course, but an interpretation has the same practical effect as a 'law' decided by a legislative body.
I always feel like the words "well regulated militia" refer to the right to bear arms under some regulation and with an eye to providing for a citizen militia and training for the sake of safety and skill. It doesn't say we must provide for every loony to carry whatever they want and aim it at anyone they feel threatened by in their paranoia.
Yep. But you can assume safely that few people have actually read the 2nd Amendment, looked into the history of it and what people said they were intending when it was crafted, and then analyzed all that to come to a rational conclusion ...
At 54, I don't have it in me to fight for the rest of my life (my gram lived to 104). I really don't...
I too was worried that a court decision barring Trump as a candidate would trigger violence among his followers. But that can't be a reason not to affirm the CO SC decision proclaiming the truth about him.
Short term - we've got to do everything we can to keep President Biden in office and turn Washington blue. Long term - we must as a country, address the significant number of folks who seem to be saying they're going to vote for Trump no matter what.
That will include addressing the corrupt actions of cynical power grabbers allowed by Citizens United AND reaching out to ordinary citizens who have been bamboozled into believing that the GOP agenda is good for them and their families.
Also, law enforcement agencies need to continue their work to contain the MAGA followers who are engaged in physical violence. AND we must address how social media makes it possible to "yell fire in a crowded theater" that is now the size of the world, and imperative that the right to "free speech" be interpreted in that light.
Let’s stop acting scared of Trump and MAGA and hold him accountable and if that means keeping him off the ballot so be it.
Boy do I like that. I’m sick and tired of being scared of The Donald and Co. The Donald especially is a coward at heart and coward’s resort to bullying. I detest bullies.
I totally agree. SCOTUS should impartially apply the law to Trump. In this case, if that means keeping him off the ballot, that's the law. Whatever his MAGA allies do in response, they will do knowing we are a country of laws not men. This is the healthiest outcome for democracy in America.
I agree that no court decision can exempt us from our civil responsibility.Trump must be defeated by all of us at the ballot box and in any way we can before then. Each of us who find MAGA to be repugnant have to reclaim our voices and not become prisoners of reacting to reactionary rhetoric. A better understanding of the many positive accomplishments of the Biden Administration and an ability to articulate them in ordinary conversation would help. That said, it is a relief to finally have Trump called out by a court of law for his actions. If we truly want a civil society we are all going to have to work for it.
Susan couldn't agree more, this means the courts too!
And the NYT is not helping the situation and looks like they are eagerly looking forward to the newsworthyness of such a violent conclusion. WaPo is right there with them.
We’re trying to counter that and so far we’ve seen many more articles by respected journalists warning about Trump as a clear and present danger to democracy. I am hopeful that we can influence MSM coverage.
The journalists, yes, but the news editors still shape the dialog and reality wih the headline and subhead wording. They are the corporatev problem.
We can try to influence them too. If Trump and other MAGAs gain governing power, they’ll seek revenge on MSM.
Headlines are important, yes. Too many (and I have been guilty of doing this too) decide to read or not read an article based on the headline. One has to choose somehow.
Plus, there are those who don't delve very far into politics anyway and may be the most persuadable who may also be the ones who get most of their "news" from a quick scan of the headlines, and may also be more prone to jump on bandwagons due to lacking any real in depth knowledge of their own.
I canceled my subscription to both of those papers. What happened to them?
Consider not cancelling. Per Robert's post, I think it was yesterday, we can push back against mis- and disinformation only if we do so where it's being disseminated.
They've been like this for YEARS. They helped get us here in the first place. This is nothing new.
That pesky Constitution. What a hassle to follow its clauses. You're so right, TCinLA!
Critical Thinking 101: How is the alternative in any scenario better for democracy and human rights? I see you saying that when fascists wield threats then established fact should be denied, the rule of law cast aside, and the Constitution ignored. That's appeasement. It didn't work before and won't work now.
No, that's not what I am saying. You might want to take that remedial Reading Comprehension 102 course. There's no appeasement in what I am saying. To the contrary, I'm saying we need to take up our responsibilities that we have cast aside over the past 50+ years, and become effective citizens again, the source of all political power here.
It's not either/or. It's both/and. I do phone banking to cure ballots, GOTV, and lots to pressure members of Congress and corporations. In my family of 4 there are some 75 arrests for nonviolent civil disobedience in service of social and environmental justice.
I stand by my reading of your position. Obeying in advance in what you're advocating. Authoritarianians rely for their power on people doing that.
I respectfully disagree. When Judge Luettig and Professor Tribe raised this issue, I felt that what was lacking was a finding by some authority that the Defendant had participated in an insurrection. The CO verdict did just that. The applicability of the prohibition that followed was, to me, self-evident, although the lower court thought otherwise. While I would have preferred that the Defendant was soundly defeated in 2024, the suit in CO (filed by Republicans and Independents by the way, not Democrats) opened Pandora's box.
I suggest we all take a deep breath and let this play out. It will surely go to the Supreme Court, which will decide it one way or the other, rightly or wrongly. We will then live with the consequences. Last night on MSNBC, Judge Luettig said as much. While he believes the CO decision is unassailable, he also believes in the Supreme Court, and the finality of any decision they reach. While many will disagree with whatever the Supremes decide, it will be final, at least as it relates to the Defendant and 2024.
All the more important our reaching out to others and supporting orgs that can increase and focus GOTV efforts.
The lawyer in me says that the Colorado court (and Robert B. Hubbell) was right, and that Trump cannot occupy federal office. The political side of me says that it would be better to beat him at the ballot box. But there was a reason for Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment, and we would traduce those whose deaths, wounds and illness led to the need for it if we ignore it now.
I just read this news. Dealing with threats to democracy is the responsibility of citizens. The courts can aid in the defense, but, as we see in many cases, aren't always where we need them to be. ... As a citizen of Massachusetts, I'm continuing to volunteer with and contribute to the Democratic Party of my native state, Wisconsin.
There's no shortcuts in politics. The ballot box is the only real solution to Trump.
Yes, we have our responsibility to continue to demonstrate to anyone who will listen that Donald Trump is unfit to be President and a great danger to our democracy BUT we must also have faith in our courts to uphold the laws that have been passed. The Colorado SC has ruled correctly and we, the citizenry, those who worship Trump and those who despise him, have to recognize and respect their ruling. I revel that this body has said the unvarnished truth and ruled on it. That's how it is supposed to work.
Agreeing with Robert, I strongly suspect the US SC will protect Trump simply because its members are being paid by right-wing donors to do so. As you can see this citizen already suspects the justices of our court of last appeal have a political and personal economic agenda buoyed by the simple greed of Justices like Thomas. His actions are a disgrace and if the Republicans need to impeach anyone in Federal employ.... And while we are here we must recognize the actions of Senator Mitch McConnell when he used Senatorial shenanigans to pack the SC with these partisans. If the SC has lost the respect of the citizenry part of the blame for that rests with McConnell's actions.
As to the NYT, if it continues in its present direction it will soon be in the check-out line at the local supermarket right next to the NE. Its desire for "Clicks" will be its ruination.
I believe Mitch was in a large part the brains behind a long term strategy going back over 30 years to seat very conservative judges in as many open positions as possible in all the lower courts because if you can determine the pool from which higher courts are chosen, you eventually determine a ruling majority of higher and higher courts. A similar strategy applies to state house and senate seats. Rule those and you change state laws, etc. For that very reason we should all pay close attention to every election down to our county and school boards... no more can we assume a position is "too small to count".
This is Mitch-the-Glitch's dream, 100%.
Realistically, this SCOTUS hasn't supported Trump in most of his attempts before them, so it's not a sure thing either way in my opinion. I'm surprised that they haven't supported him in his efforts to bypass his trials in any number of ways, but they haven't so far.
Perhaps, just perhaps they realize the ramifications of letting him become as great a danger to the democracy as he seems to want to be. With the absolute power he claims what's to stop him from throwing them all out in the street or worse? The law protects us all, even SC justices.
Hope you're right. What you say makes sense; even if only self-interest is present in SCOTUS (or seems like specific justices are motivated primarily by that ...), they have to understand the danger of any president having no restrictions on his/her behavior.
To get good info regarding the law, try following Glenn Kirschner's "Justice Matters" You Tube videos. He was a D.C. prosecutor for over 20 years. By followint Glenn, I'm up to date on what TFG does and the legal implications thereof.
I tend to agree with your comments, except part of me thinks that at least several of the conservative members of SCOTUS may not be such big fans of Trump and would be perfectly happy to see him knocked off by Haley, a somewhat more buttoned-down conservative who will be friendly to the traditional Republican wealth-base without being so out-there on some issues. Eliminating Trump from ballots clears the path, perhaps, for an alternate. For SCOTUS to avoid confirming the Colorado decision, which I think any fair reading of the US Constitution requires, the majority is going to have to engage in intellectual dishonesty and hypocritical reasoning beyond what they have already done, and I can imagine that a Roberts, for example, might be happy not to do that for once in the interest of attempting to make Trump unelectable.
It is the voters (in groups) who are going to the courts to ban TFG from the ballot. There are lots of ways for voters to be involved in this process before the actual ballot!
I doubt you need to feel much anxiety on this account because it's likely the Supreme Court will strike this down. I don't think allowing a decision in the courts to help save democracy from a dictatorship is a bad thing though. Those who are die hard Trump supporters won't accept it, but they wouldn't accept any voted outcome that did the same thing. Those who are persuaded by court decisions need to hear that it was an insurrection, that Trump incited it, and that he is not above the law.
If the SCOTUS decides this cannot be determined at the state level, they will have given the lie to many of their prior positions. They may decide the conclusion on his connection to the insurrection needs to wait until his trial outcome.
Either way though, by court decisions or by vote, the exact same people who would promote civil war would do the same things if the next President is not who they want. I am inclined to believe there will be a rough year or two if Trump loses (as opposed to a rough forevermore), but that eventually there will be a strengthening of a more moral normality and our froggy neighbors will slowly heal from the brain tissue damage the conservative slow boil has induced. Their views will slowly, slowly, revert to pre-MAGA days and they will barely remember when they were pro-insurrection, begin to view the conspiracy theories they used to believe with more jaundiced eyes, and edge over out of the losers' camp.
We will always have a hard core of crazies and haters and greed driven power grabbers in denial as to their own mediocrity and how much they will lose if they "win". That too, is democracy. We must win this now by any of many fair means, and then double down on clearing up the delirium surrounding the media, ensuring we have farther reach with fair news sources, and ensuring we have better schools that teach how to really assess and evaluate sources.
If Trump is kept off the ballot in CO, and perhaps in other states, wouldn’t people be allowed to write in his name? If so, then it would be we, the people, making the final decision. Yes, being left off the ballot would be a huge handicap, but one of Trump’s own making, and one his supporters must deal with. So, the law, as clearly put forth in the Constitution, would be followed, and still people would be allowed to vote their preference.
Per the court's opinion, write-in votes for someone who is not a qualified candidate cannot be counted. See page 132 of the opinion. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
Always good to read the opinion. Thanks!
And that’s really the key issue, Gina. It is of Trump’s own making! He started this crap and now should pay for it. After all, the 1000+ people who have been convicted as insurrectionists are already serving their time in prison or at their own homes because of his rhetoric. SCOTUS should not forget that tidbit.
Interesting. I hadn’t thought of that.🙏
To decide Trump's fate at the ballot box would be great, but an election is exactly the democratic process Trump tried to overthrow.
We can't avoid holding Trump accountable out of fear of what his supporters will do. Do you think they will gracefully accept a Trump loss at the ballot box?
Very well written comment. I just wrote about the same concerns, although you said it better.
The cult members are getting itchy.
I watched Kamalla with Lawrence tonight and yes, Robert, everyone needs to see how sharp and focussed she is. She could still run circles around anyone in the Senate, and the Repugs candidates? She'd blow them away just exhaling.
Kamala Harris is impressive.
Solid. She frightens the media wonks.
Saw what you did there. Nice and subtle respect.
Great to hear VP Harris will be on the road in a couple weeks with the Reproductive Freedom Tour !🚌
“Florida Republicans and Democrats gathering signatures for petitions on both sides of abortion issue”😎
https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/news/2023/12/18/abortion-amendments
VP Harris is brilliant yet continues to be vilified for being Black and a woman.
I love the exhaling comment
♥️♥️♥️
Just a short rant about Kamala Harris and her critics: What does it take to give up on the patriarchy? To continue to ingest all the poison with which it has saturated your lives and those of your ancestors and your children until maybe, at last, you refuse to take even another teeny tiny sip? Many in the older generation have only known a world thoroughly dominated by people who looked, talked, and behaved just like them -- if they were either White Males or submissive folks of any gender. Strong, intelligent women like Kamala Harris do not exist to make life easier for us. They do hope to make life better for us in the future; but in the short-term that often means they speak clearly, often, and strongly about what they know and believe and want to do -- just like they would do if they were members of the dominant class. They don't p-foot around and try to make the patriarchy 'feel safe'; most women have felt very UN-safe because of it; why should they acquiesce and fawn and promise to be good little girls who sit quietly with their ankles neatly crossed? With the long and bloody history of the patriarchy on exhibit daily: that we see so many women in particular who would prefer a leader more like Nikki Haley(?!!!) than Kamala Harris suggests that they have abandoned themselves, other women, and even their own daughters who should be able to count on them to be as strong and smart and brave as they can manage. Being from the South and living in Texas for 50+ years brings this starkly to my attention daily and it makes me enraged. One reason I don't worry about 'Biden's Age' is specifically because of Kamala Harris backing him up.
Brilliant
This 14th amendment decision is something. To me, the Constitution language is so plain...I can see where some might wish “it ain’t so,” but it’s there in black and white. Maybe it HELPS to not be a lawyer sometimes? I mean, how do you just ignore part of the Constitution ?
And speaking of plain English, every time I read again about January 6, something new hits me, and today it was these CO SC sentences: “Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling Senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes. These actions constituted overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection.”
There you have it. Whatever happens next, thank you, Colorado Supreme Court.
Last night at an annual holiday dinner with 3 of my friends of 20 years we eventually got around to talking about the election next year. I respect these women who also lean republican. The name Trump never entered our conversation so we had a very civil exchange which was refreshing. Here were the points unanimously made by all 3:
Biden is doing a disservice by running as he is mentally infirm and can't perform the duties of his office.
The dems have been protecting Hunter Biden while his dad has been in office and now that he is running again the dems are no longer protecting Hunter.
Gavin Newsom will pop in at the last minute as the candidate for president.
Kamala Harris is unfit to be president if Joe Biden has a health event.
I listened for a very long time and then let it rip in a very respectful way saying that what you might not know in your news bubble is that many, many people are in favor of the Biden/Harris ticket and have every confidence that Biden can and will carry on doing all of the great things he has done as our president! It was refreshing for me to speak my truth but also to be heard by my friends. It gave me great confidence moving forward into 2024 to speak up and speak out!!
Written here with a grateful heart to Robert, Jill and all of his subscribers who have given me the courage to speak my truth.
To your 3 Republican friends and the millions more like them in the FOX bubble..
If Joe Biden's record reflects a dottering, half senile leader, America definitely needs a bunch more of these...maybe these qualities should become criteria for running for high office. We'd be so much better off.
Thanks for your story.
Love this analogy Merrill. Will have to use this in the coming months!! Made me smile :)
Oh dear. It sounds like you are in a red state or a red region, and bravo for you on holding your own. We evolved as social animals and at our instinctual level it feels like it's of survival level importance to be part of a group, so it's no small feat to speak up when what you believe and know to be true isn't what a majority around you are saying. Applause! (And hugs if they help).
Yehawes,
We are as Blue as Lake Michigan gets here in Chicago! Thanks for your kind words, applause and yes I will take that hug! :)
I think the fact that people have the opinion of Biden that they do vis-a-vis his 'weaknesses' and not getting things done, etc., etc., is almost entirely the responsibility/fault of the media. Here's a response from The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/LaBolt-Memo_Biden-Harris-Agenda-Delivered-in-2023.pdf for at least the part about not getting things done yada yada. As far as the weakness thing -- if they think about what Biden's been doing all along globally as well as nationally, that just doesn't make any sense. All Trump managed to do was play golf, eat/drink, and Tweet. Biden's done some really amazing things diplomatically and continues to hold a punishing schedule.
I will do my best to share as widely as possible today’s newsletter and its sobering summary of corruption at the highest levels of our government.
The story of the insurrection has come to light, thanks in large part to the January 6 Committee investigation, a few incorruptible state election workers, and Jack Smith.
Today the Colorado Supreme Court cast the brightest light yet. Trump has been disqualified from running for office in Colorado.
Others individuals have been compelled to take action to change the course brought on by corrupt leadership.
Independent writers like Robert Hubbell, Jessica Craven, Heather Cox Richardson and Simon Rosenberg are dedicated to finding and sharing critical information to many thousands of readers. Many of us will also act as points of light.
I regret that the paper I have had delivered to my front door, for 40 years has not done its part in bringing the truth to light. If the coverage of polls continues to be distorted, and Biden excellent leadership continues to be downplayed, I will cancel my NYT subscription.
"Independent writers like Robert Hubbell, Jessica Craven, Heather Cox Richardson and Simon Rosenberg are dedicated to finding and sharing critical information to many thousands of readers. Many of us will also act as points of light." ~ Moore Leslie Joyce
Thank you.
Don't cancel. Write critical comments in the comment section below many articles of the digital Times
Though over the next few weeks I would expect the High Court to find some off-ramp for overturning Colorado, I also expect the justices will strike down Trump’s immunity argument that would have exempted him from all the crimes he committed while he was president. Accordingly, Trump’s delay tactics will fail and the March 1/6 trial will proceed as scheduled, or at least close enough. Even more important, I encourage us not to underestimate the immeasurable significance of two court adjudications both finding Trump an insurrectionist. In my view, they will figure prominently in the outcome of the 2024 election, more so now likely to land on the very issue that drove Biden initially to run—the fight for the soul of democracy, for government “of, by, and for the people.”
I think we're heading for a 60-40 Biden landslide in 2024 and Trump/MAGA is heading for the dustbin.
It's the Headlines, stupid! Or at least that's what I feel. The journalists articles in the NY Times usually have the feel of verity. But the Headline Writers from the Times are barely getting a C+. I'm of the opinion that the Headline writers are more often than not the editors, not the journalists. Does anyone agree?
Not a C+ — it's an F.
When your headline distorts the facts, slants the interpretation and leads readers to inaccurate conclusions, that's a flat out failure to communicate truthfully, accurately and thoroughly. There is a disturbing agenda behind such misleading headlines that goes beyond catching more reader dollars with clickbait. In a democracy of/for/by the people, supported by the rule of law, access to unbiased information is critical. MSM is losing touch with that obligation and responsibility - and increasingly we the public are forced to find alternative sources for truth, facts and accurate information.
Headline writers matter. A lot of folks who say they read the newspapers just skim the headlines.
Exactly. They set the tone. Not clear why the NYT (of all papers) should so often choose a headline that isn't even even-handed, but is actively negative to Biden. Maybe they think they are leaning over backwards to keep red state readers interested, but I disapprove.
I believe I read somewhere that there is a special team of headline writers. Editors may send headlines back, but I bet editors are better paid.
Frequent Biden supporter flamethrowing and swearing at the NY Times is not going bring about change at the NY Times. It would be unfortunate if it did. (Constructive criticism might.) Nor are the attacks on the NY Times going to motivate more Biden supporters to help get out the vote. God help us if that's what it takes to motivate us. Nor does it help to attribute the comments of op-ed opinion columnists to the Times. We know, or at least should know, that's not how op-ed pieces work. They are opinions independent of the Times. The NY Times is actually our friend. We need to remember that. As the NY Times pointed out the other day, our media enemy is the army of trolls creating and proliferating deep fake social media memes that spread inane and deadly falsehoods about Joe Biden and Democrats. Our only antidote for that is getting out the vote. We need to figure out our narrative for doing that in the face of Joe Biden having to make very difficult to win choices on impossible issues like the war in the middle east and immigration. If our narrative is that the NY Times isn't being sensible or fair to us, well, the end isn't going to be pretty.
"The NY Times is actually our friend." I want to believe that. I believe a free press is critical to democracy. But look at the last couple of decades. The reporting on WMD in Iraq was essentially the laundering of Dick Cheney's propaganda, and helped get us into a war which I think is still undermining belief in our government. I believe the NYT also played a critical role in Trump's election with its over-the-top coverage of Hillary's emails. Their headlines forecast the "Red Wave" in 2022, and a recession in 2023. And now they seem to be doing it all over again with anti-Biden headlines. I find it hard to believe that all of this slant is coincidental.
It's not coincidental. It's "clickbait" a road to greater revenue from advertisers.
I agree with you. I still have both my subscriptions but deciding what to do. The headlines are the problem.
Another way to frame the argument, is that "bias" is fundamental to the structure of all political discourse, political journalism and political action. It's unavoidable.
In this context, the NYTs has an anti-Biden bias. Since the MSM has a profound impact on the "public" mind it becomes propaganda for particular parties or leaders.
We need to push the propaganda in our direction. So, when we push back on the NYTs for their anti-Biden bias we should be encouraging them to write many more favorable articles about the president and put them above the fold on Pages 1-5.
It would be great to know how many votes Biden picks up with every positive MSM story, but we can be sure the cumulative effects is significant. In a race where every vote matters, the more positive spin we can squeeze out of the NYTs the merrier.
Have faith.
I've mentioned several times that the way to affect the NYT or WaPo is not to scream at them. Instead ask WHY they chose a particular headline and what effect they think a headline that doesn't actually mirror the content of the piece does. Or in the case like that Schmitz op Ed, ask why they decided to run a fact-free speculation as an op-Ed as opposed to many reasoned and fact-based Op-Eds they have published that you don't agree with but respect for their support for the argument. Support by pointing out which "facts" are indeed false or reasoning faulty. My favorite howler in that op-Ed was that trump must be moderate because he always said he was going to replace the ACA with something better. UH, 4 years with never a peep about anything better. If he had tried, one could argue about his plan. But there was never a plan. How can one call a totally empty promise a sign of underlying moderation?
Simply yowling at the NYT without any attempt to get them to explain is, well, your basic victim narrative.
I agree with you Sue, although I think chasing NY Times Op-ed pieces is going down a rabbit hole. People who read the NY Times Op-ed pieces either already feel the same way we do and know what we know about Op-ed falsehoods or they don't realize they are reading the NY Times. They mistakenly think they're reading the NY Post. Picked up the wrong paper. Op-ed readers are not the minds we need to change or persuade. We need to educate the people who believe what the trolls are sending them, and the people in the middle. Methinks that's not the NY Yimes Op-ed readers.
I wasn't suggesting changing the minds of op-Ed readers. I was suggesting changing the mind of the NYT as to what is a worthy op-Ed
:)
Hey Peter, I'm not certain I'm interpreting your :) correctly though it appears you are not defending your position – instead extending understanding of Susan Linehan's last comment on that which she "wasn't suggesting."
While I'm hardly a skilled communicator and surely haven’t credentials to analyze the exchange, it seems to me, you possess an admirable ability to listen. To choose receptivity over self-righteousness. Attributes I do not possess. Thank you.
And even if your intention was not as I interpret it, lesson learned for me just the same. ;)
Thank you, Jean, for your kind words. Yes, you’ve got it right! I absolutely agree with Susan! And, I think we all agree, including of course Rob, which he emphasizes often, that we need to help create a broad narrative that will get out the vote in support of Biden’s important accomplishments and ongoing work! Let’s focus our efforts on how we can move the needle with whatever portion of the middle has been susceptible to believing the false narratives spun by the MAGA crazies in their troll videos and on the debate stages! Let's not get caught up attacking each other! We have a great democracy and have elected an unusually wise man as our President. He’s willing and able to devote some of the best and most valuable years of his life to serving us and free people around the world. Let’s line up an electoral majority to make that happen!
You skip over the part where the NYTimes--that nation's newspaper of record--affects the national conversation about Joe Biden. On the one hand, you tell us that voters must set the narrative straight about Joe Biden, but we are "playing the victim" when we point out the false narrative in the NYTimes. Which is it?
I don't think NY Times readers' votes will be swayed by the Times' errant headlines and stories slighting Biden. Convincing Times' voteers of the danger of Trump and the beauty of Biden is not our challenge. We have a much bigger problem than I think we have if they're not with us or if they don't vote. They are our cohorts and find the Time's headlines annoying, just as we do. But, I fear attacking our friends, including the Times, is distracting us from the path to victory. We are in this together with the Times. They will endorse Biden! That will help us soilidify our base on election day. In the meantime, we need to win over non-Times readers!
I disagree about the ability of the Times to affect voters. See, e.g., Hillary Clinton's emails. The Times' coverage wasn't the only reason she lost, but the Times had a hand in her defeat by treating a non-story on an equal basis with Trump's collaboration with Russia and personal corruption. It is doing the same thing today: Hunter Biden = "I will be a dictator on day one", theft of national security documents, and $2 billion payoff to Jared Kushner, attempted coup, incited insurrection. There is no equivalency, but that is the premise of the Times' coverage--at least as measured by attenion, story placement, and narrative.
The Times is being irresponsible and reckless at a tenuous moment for democracy. There is no sin in demanding that the Times rise to the moment. If it doesn't, it may the the Times' last opportunity to do so.
I too disagree. I wrote why somewhere in this amazing maze of commentary... but, Mr. Peter, one thing that springs out at me is your characterization of feedback as "attack". I feel confident that the emails readers here send to the NY Times are and will remain respectful and factual. Disagreement is not always attack. For instance, I am disagreeing with you now but would be dismayed if you felt attacked.
You have short-term memory loss if you don't think the NYTs helped us to get here in the first place. There have been many studies done comparing the amount of stories and ton of Trump vs HRC. They lionized him and vilified her. Revisionist history does no one any good.
You put that very well. Thank you.
Well said. Chasing NYT headlines via letters to the editor is one important path of action, but the more important path is to do what Anat Shenker-Osorio says: Paint a beautiful tomorrow that the Democrats are working towards, and share that tomorrow with our base to engage them and with the middle to persuade them.
So much to learn from Anat Shenker-Osorio about how best to message our progressive vision and the MAGA plan to take away our freedoms.
Certainly we need to be constructive in our feedback to the NY Times. I doubt very much that anyone here is doing any swearing at them (even if a little private word or two might escape one's lips during a morning read). This is a very constructive bunch, and many here do much more than write letters to the editors, reporters and about the headlines. That's one thing many do. That's all some can do. Try plugging up your sink under a drippy faucet if you don't think drops add up. I think it's all going to help.
The NY Times does choose what to print even if outside writers produce the copy. They could certainly print an opinion they disagree with and pair it with an opposing opinion replete with facts and references. When they don't do that they are failing at presenting unbiased information, and they are doing the work of the misinformation and disinformation army. When they misfire that way they are not acting as our friends.
They are, in fact, a bottom line driven business and it can't hurt for their customers to let them know what we would like to see in terms of truth and fairness and honest instead of misleading headlines. So long as we present our feedback with the intent of improving their functioning we are hardly being flame throwers. I think it will affect their choices and I believe (acknowledging this is very subjective) that it already is showing signs of doing so.
If opinions aren't built on perceived facts and the media doesn't affect people's opinions then what does it do? I believe it's important to address media bias. I believe it's important to increase voter registration and commitment. I believe it's important to identify and combat district gerrymandering. I believe it's important to remind people to write their emails to the NY Times respectfully, as you have, and to engage in thoughtful conversations here and elsewhere... and not just embrace the narrative that the NY Times is being fair, but to make it so!
Points well stated
Thanks!! And thanks to the Colorado Supreme Court! I don’t know what the NYT is up to anymore!
I am worried though that the Biden administration’s closeness to Israel is really hurting them. The destruction of Gaza is indefensible and they should be saying that loud and clear, not in the soft diplomatic way they are nudging Netanyahu. The standing of the US in general is suffering in the world. We are on the wrong side of history here.
“ The destruction of Gaza is indefensible and they should be saying that loud and clear, not in the soft diplomatic way they are nudging Netanyahu.” —
The “destruction of Gaza” is a byproduct of attacking Hamas. Hamas placed military installations within or adjacent to civilian institutions and people’s homes – a war crime. Attacking Hamas has therefore involved collateral civilian damage.
I disagree, have you read today's headlines... The UN is trying to rewrite their policy in order to garnish US support. I believe the Biden administration's stance is taking us in the right direction in what is an extremely complicated situation without easy solutions. Just imagine the mess it would be if our former president were handling this situation. It's just unfortunate that this is creating division in the Dems & being utilized by the right to present a false narrative.
I can appreciate the journalistic challenge that community faces after years of training to present both sides of a story. Fox News co-opted the philosophy coining their 3 word motto, "Fair and Balanced" although their news coverage cannot even sarcastically be considered that. It is another 3 word phrase easily remembered, repeated and understood by a wide swath of the population because that's as deep as they are.
But, I digress. The real issue here is far less challenging than the mainstream media would like us to believe. Covering "both sides" is applicable and reasonable when both sides have a valid philosophical underpinning to their view, not one which is antithetical to our very way of life and based on an aggregation of lies. Balanced coverage in this day and age would be to cover Trump and the minions for what they are...the reincarnation of fascism. And it should include a definition of what fascism actually is and how it is embodied in the spirit, intent and actions of Donald Trump. Real and informative balanced coverage should be a call for national outrage and to express that outrage every day from now until we all step into the voting booth. It is the right time for this out of disgust but also out of necessity.
It's like providing fair and balanced coverage of nuclear war by presenting all the bad things about it and all the good things as well!
Kamala Harris is a very intelligent woman.
Thank you, Pro Publica journalists, for the investigative work respecting the corruption of Supreme Court justices, particularly Mr. Thomas. Once again, the headline writer mistakenly wrote that the corruption process has been “long and slow.” Indeed, the evidence reveals that Mr. Thomas has long been the recipient of corrupting generosity of his wealthy supporters (who have personally benefited from their “gift giving”); but as you point out, there was no delay in responding to Mr. Thomas’ overt, but apparently “delicate,” solicitation of the supplemental means of supporting the lifestyle to which he felt entitled.
This new report simply adds to the growing amount of empirical information available about the sleaziness and character defects of multiple members of the current court. This information together with the justices’ recent publication of a glaringly weak “code of ethics” by which they disclaimed any intent to be legally bound, makes it all the more urgent that Congress exercise its Constitutional authority to enact a mandatory and enforceable code of ethics applicable to Supreme Court members and personnel. It is noteworthy that other recent reporting revealed that the justices do not - and cannot reasonably- trust one another (in that particular instance about the process of creating and publishing the Dobbs decision). It is therefore no surprise that the public has compelling reason to believe that this particular collection of flawed humanity constitutes an illegitimate court.
Floridians Protecting Freedom is an organization in Florida that has been collecting signatures on petitions. The purpose is to include a referendum on the ballot asking voters whether abortion should be legal in Florida. They received twice as many petitions as they needed. Twice as many. Hopefully a harbinger of things to come.
Thank you for sharing that ray of sunshine in the not so sunlit state.
I have now watched VP Harris twice, first last night and again via the link (thank you, Mr. Hubbell). I do not understand why people, including smart, successful women, have a strong negative reaction to Ms. Harris. Perhaps Sky777 is correct; it is the color of her skin and chromosomes. Perhaps it is that like most VP's her work (and the work of the smart, accomplished Second Gentleman) does not get enough coverage. I am a huge fan of Lawrence O'Donnell. Now, maybe that will change.