52 Comments
Jan 5, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell

From my brother in Prescott, AZ. "Subject: Well said!

 Letter in todays AZ Republic;

There is a a qualitative difference in the fringe of both parties

After reading a number of letters from people on the left and on the right warning us of the extremists on the other side, I would like to make this observation: The far left is pushing an agenda of expanded health care, free education, living wages for working people and action to combat the climate crisis.

The far right is advocating more restrictions on voting, diminishing a women’s access to health care, defending the wealthiest against increased taxes and denying science on all fronts.

Which direction should this society be heading?

William Hoene, Mesa

Expand full comment
author

Brad, as you will see, the letter you forwarded served as the inspiration for my opening comments this evening. Thanks!

Expand full comment
author

Agree! Well said!

Expand full comment
Jan 5, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell

Robert, Did you answer Brand's question?

Expand full comment
author

I think it is a rhetorical question, no?

Expand full comment

That wasn't my impression. Perhaps some guidance from you is the point being made.

Expand full comment
Jan 5, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell

What could Robert be talking about when he wrote, 'The world’s most anti-democratic body?'

Here's his follow-up: 'Measure the minor inconvenience of a talking filibuster on the bladders of aging Senators against the stranglehold on democracy imposed by the filibuster, where 10% of the population can impose its will on 90% of the population.'

After absorbing a plethora in information from 'Today's Edition', tips, and analysis, Manchin, Martin Luther King Day, “talking filibuster”, insurrection, House Select Committee, Fox News, Chop Wood, Carry Water 1/3, Sean Hannity Sedition Caucus, January 6th, Trump, UnFox My Cable Box, Seal Team Six Seven, major corporations pledge not to support GOP objectors in 2022, Covid-19, The Op-ed Project, For the Love of Democracy AND MORE, I returned to the source of Robert's most Anti-Democratic Body, comprised as it is of 'THE BLADDERS OF AGING SENATORS'. What a sight!

Expand full comment
author

After re-reading that passage as interpreted by Fern, it is funnier than I thought! But I think you have to be a man of a certain age to fully understand why Senators do not want to return to a talking filibuster!

Expand full comment

In my 70s. Oh do I know what he is talking about. Hang on. It only started with me in the last 3 years!

Expand full comment

Fern, you hit the nail!

Expand full comment

Oh, it hurts!

Expand full comment

Trump not holding a news conference on January 6th probably happened because the major networks were not going to carry it and he would be denied the platform he desired not because he had any remorse about that day and his actions. The making public little by little of key behind the scenes activities supporting the coup and identifying congressional members is building a scenario of that day that should appall many voters and hopefully impact future voting decisions.

Expand full comment
author

I had not heard that the major networks were not going to carry Trump's speech, but if so, I am glad to hear it. I wonder if even Fox News would have carried it live. I hope not.

Expand full comment
founding

Robert, Of course Fox would have carried it. After all, they are Trump's megaphone. And Hannity, Carlson, & Rupert are making lots of money with the disinformation. Capitalism is not on our side with this group.

Expand full comment

Unrestrained capitalism is a serious danger to our country. It is literally every man for himself. No rule of law.

Expand full comment
founding

Exactly! Corruption runs rampant.

Expand full comment

This is called putting the nail in on one swing

Expand full comment

With regard to the filibuster, I have one more suggestion that can be put before His Highness Joe Manchin. The 60 Senator requirement is OK so long as the 40 who are blocking closing debate or opposing a bill represent at least 50% of the country's population. That would bring a touch of democracy to the process. It's possible that a requirement of even 40% of the country's population would reduce the force of the filibuster substantially.

Expand full comment
Jan 5, 2022·edited Jan 5, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell

As for the future of our democracy, and the role of the Department of Justice and AG Merrick Garland's within it, I highly recommend viewing yesterday's (1/4/22) history chat by Dr. Heather Cox Richardson. The DOJ is not a political organization, they are quietly and thoroughly investigating and indicting. But our democracy is clearly endangered. Robert's recommendations for action here are spot on, and right at our fingertips. Thank You.

https://fb.watch/alfv6cv98C/

Expand full comment

Cancellation of the news conference by Trump is very good news. We are indeed in the thick of the fight. Thank you for your humor and uncommon common sense about the power of editorials. I am on that track.

Expand full comment

I write in response to your portrayal of the Senate as “the world’s most anti-democratic body.” Although your analysis both of the Senate and also of our Party’s chief obstructionist Manchin (I also would include Sinema) is flawless, I maintain we must stay in the fight for filibuster reform for it is the one remedy that will end McConnell’s veto over the will of the majority.

Because we are running out the clock on democracy itself, I will focus my discussion on the Senate vote scheduled for MLK Day. If I understand correctly, Schumer has planned a floor vote for both voter protection bills ( the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act). I also understand that while both Manchin and Sinema support the two companion bills, neither currently supports a filibuster carve-out nor do they support changing the 60-vote threshold to end debate. Seeing that Schumer needs all 50 Senators to sign on to a rule change, an option proposed by former Chief Counsel to Ted Kennedy, Jeff Blattner, could work. For “major” legislation, it would ensure “the minority a full debate and the right to offer relevant amendments.” However, “after an extended period…without the offering of an amendment gaining bipartisan support, the supporter of the bill [e.g. the Freedom to Vote Act] could move to invoke cloture (the cutting off of debate) by a simple majority vote.” In my view, the brilliance of this proposal, or some version of it possibly under consideration, is that it comes closer to meeting Manchin’s and Sinema’s demands than any other I’ve reviewed and, as stated, it ends McConnell’s veto over the will of the majority.

In yesterday’s newsletter, you wrote something to the effect of likely having to revisit filibuster reform in 22 or 24. With all due respect, to me, that reads like giving up on democracy. If we don’t even try to enact a check on GOP controlled State Legislatures that unilaterally continue to pass bill after bill that restricts voting and nullifies votes, the 2022 I imagine will be one of utter chaos, the breakdown of the rule of law, and the loss of trust both in government and in mainstream institutions of American life.

Expand full comment
author

Hi, Barbara. Thanks for your explanation, but I disagree with you on several points.

As I understand it, the procedure described above allows cloture based on 51 votes. Why is that not the equivalent of eliminating the filibuster wholesale, bill by bill, by simply requiring that amendments fail after debate? If 50 Senator support that approach, we should do it today. I fully support bringing that procedure to the floor for a vote to see where Manchin and Sinema stand. But if Manchin and Sinema oppose ending the filibuster, why would they agree to end the filibuster by saying that cloture is invoked after a proposed amendment fails?

And I have never suggested that we not try to enact voting rights reform. I have written many times that Schumer should force Sinema and Manchin (and every Republican) to take a public stand. But, to review the record, Manchin said several months ago, "Jesus Christ, what part of "never" don't you understand" when asked if he would support eliminating the filibuster. Last month, he said "I can't imagine creating a carve out for voting rights legislation." So, I agree. Let's bring the John Lewis Voting Rights Act to the floor for a vote. My point is that we should be realistic about the potential for passage. If that doesn't happen, then we need to increase 2 - 4 more Democratic Senators in order to pass voter protection.

And, finally, 2022 will not be a year of utter chaos with the breakdown of the rule of law. We cannot fall victim to the doomsayers who claim that the end of democracy is near. It is not, unless we give up. We face huge challenges by a party that wants to undermine the Constitution. We must do everything we can to stop them. But let's not exaggerate their power or effectiveness, either.

Expand full comment

Dear Robert, I cannot imagine anyone not fretting over the question of whether our cherished institutions of American life will hold up to the coordinated effort to put in place a targeted veto to control the outcome of future elections. Thus, I consider any filibuster rule change that ends a minority veto over the will of the majority a good start towards fortifying brutally tested and now fragile institutions in an effort to usher in an era of restoration and renewal. As for the rule change Blattner proposed, granting the minority a say over a piece of legislation and an opportunity to suggest improvements is hardly “the equivalent of eliminating the filibuster wholesale.” As a final point, though I’m not privy to the various rule changes that currently are under discussion, I would note, this past Tuesday, when Manchin was asked whether, as in the past, he “would not be open to changing the rules without Republican buy-in…” Manchin replied, “That’s my absolute preference.” I view Manchin stating it’s a “preference” as a promising sign and, furthermore, believe, if Dems can get Manchin on board with a workable rule change, Sinema will follow.

Expand full comment
founding

The key point here is, "we must stop seeking "work arounds" and double our efforts for victory in 2022 and 2024.

Expand full comment

Thank you for such an informative newsletter and for the action steps. I have signed up today as a "subscriber" after sitting on the sidelines for about a month, visiting and caring for my brother who unexpectedly passed on Christmas Eve. Now I'm ready to enter the breach again. I think the letters to the editor idea has much merit, although I have yet to get one published. So my new idea is to write to the CEO/Chairman of my local paper (The Tampa Bay Times) and put him on the spot for the paper's biased reporting. They may think they are presenting "both sides" in their news coverage, but there are no "both sides" now. As the "fourth estate" they have an obligation to tell the truth, and for the most part they are not doing that. I will let you know how that goes!

Expand full comment
author

Hi, Annette, I am sorry to hear about your brother's passing. And bless you for re-entering the struggle to defend democracy. Your decision to write to Chairman of the the Tampa Bay Times for its resort to "both-siderism" and false equivalencies is exactly the right thing to do. I hope your letter gets published. Please send a link if it does. I would love to share it with the readers of this newsletter. I wish you peace and strength.

Expand full comment

Writing letters to local newspapers works. This letter is being printed on January 6th in Raleigh NC. We can’t forget

On the anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021 breach of our Capitol we must remember that seven U.S. House members from North Carolina voted to object to the 2020 election results.

The N.C. Republicans who objected to President Biden’s wins in Arizona and Pennsylvania were U.S. Reps. Dan Bishop, Ted Budd, Madison Cawthorn, Richard Hudson and David Rouzer. U.S. Reps. Virginia Foxx and Greg Murphy also objected the Pennsylvania results, but accepted the Arizona results.

In essence, these seven Republican members of the N.C. delegation were part of the failed coup to overthrow our election in support of former President Trump. We must hold all of them accountable for their assault on our democracy.

Stephen Berg, Chapel Hill

Expand full comment
author

wonderful! Keep up the good work! Do you have a link to the letter?

Expand full comment

It’s above. Does not get printed till tomorrow

Expand full comment

David Rouzer is my representative, seditious weasel that he is. I read his bio in the local Wilmington Star-News. He has moved from office to office. He just wants to hold political office. He is into resume building. He does not care about the people of our district. He said when he was first elected, that he could represent southeastern NC because his family had a vacation house in Wilmington. Really?!!!! He would know what’s it’s like to be poor in rural eastern NC? His newsletters are rehashed R talking points. He is not an independent thinker.

Expand full comment
Jan 5, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell

The cancellation of the press conference was explained here, as "just a recognition that Jan. 15 (Trump's rally in Florence, AZ) is the really important event". There are likely to be a few thousand at that event, which will be covered by....Fox News and OAN. Two days later, Joe Manchin, probably singly and alone, will vote "present" or not vote at all-on whatever filibuster reform gets to the floor of the Senate. In the meantime, work on the ground, to strengthen our democracy, will long continue.

Expand full comment
founding

Robert, You made it clear early in 2021 that we must recognize the imperative of increasing the Democrats Senate Majority while holding on to the House. Never has advice been truer than when I read today's Today's Edition. We must set aside any delusions about Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema. We must focus our energies on expanding Democratic majorities in both the Senate & the House. One additional note, one of the links you provided took me to an article wherein Sean Hannity, is reported to have stated, "I never said I was a journalist." To wit, you suggested we "unFox my cable." I'd like to point out that Joe Manchin is also no journalist. Yet, the WP has repeatedly given him a forum to write about his fantasy of bipartisanship and his refusal to even allow for a carve out of the filibuster for legislation that is extremely significant to saving our democracy. So, might I ask, Shouldn't we consider writing and calling out the WP to stop providing Manchin with so much print space for his "smokescreens that merely conceal the deeply anti‑democratic nature of the filibuster?" Joe has regularly demonstrated that he is not a reliable partner with his colleagues or the President while ignoring the interests of voting rights, democracy, and constitutional governance. As per your counsel of January 2021 the time is well past due to move on from the fantasy thinking that Joe or Krysten will come around to doing the right thing.

Expand full comment
author

Hi, John. Thanks for your note. To clarify, based on a comment below by another reader, I am not saying we shouldn't try to override the filibuster. I am saying we should do so and see what happens. If we fail, then we can get on with the work of making Sinema and Manchin irrelevant. As to WaPo, WSJ, NYT giving Manchin a platform, I share your unhappiness over that fact. In one of his op-ed for WaPo, he included facts that are just not true. (I addressed this in a newsletter at the time.) And, yet, the WaPo editorial board decided it was fine to allow him to lie to the American public because he is a U.S. Senator and it was his "opinion." I worry that the unthinking adherence to "both-siderism" and false equivalencies is undermine the moral authority of legitimate news sources.

Expand full comment
founding

Amen! It was not my intention to suggest Schumer not go forward with votes on the legislation. To the contrary, he should so all can see and understand better the untenable position of Joe & Krysten. I agree completely with your sentiments.

Expand full comment

Robert, we should certainly both be letting companies that have reneged on their commitment to not support politicians who are anti-democratic know that we disapprove of their actions AND seek to boycott those companies whose services and products we might otherwise use. As much as companies don't like bad publicity and unhappy members of the public, they are at least as likely to be incentivized to change their behavior by actual loss of revenue. One question for you: is it clear to folks to whom, and how, to address their communications with companies to ensure they are received?

Expand full comment
author

Good question. I have used their "consumer comment / complaint" forms online. It feels impersonal and pointless, but you have to believe the companies in teh business of making money are looking at what consumers say. So, I would use the tools the companies give consumers to complain.

But I believe the better tactic is to generate bad publicity for companies by writing op-eds and letters to the editor. When I have mentioned companies by name in the newsletter, I have received emails from P.R. representatives who have explained, either (a) that they didn't give money to Sedition Caucus members, but only to the PACS (that fund Sedition Caucus members, or (b) that was then and this is now and they no longer give money to Sedition Caucus members.

Expand full comment

Probably as good a place to write as any but I do worry that the messages go somewhere in the bowels of a company unless there is a massive outpouring of sentiment. I do agree with your view as to the better tactic.

Expand full comment

Absolutely love your “Call to Action” with the Letters to the Editor Sources. The “Op Ed Project” sounds Amazing but a little out of my price range…checking in to their Tuition Assistance. “For the Love of Democracy” gets you going immediately, so I’m on that one today. We all have 5 minutes a day we can set aside to VOICE our opinions…let your local papers hear from us!

Expand full comment
author

Hi, Betty. Thanks for researching the op-ed project and including the information here.

Expand full comment

"Pay in Words" Scholarship Policy at the Op Ed Project. They simply ask a commitment of you, once you accept the honor system award. What an investment! https://www.theopedproject.org/scholarships

Expand full comment
Jan 5, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell

I am going to wait and see what Robert says tomorrow about Garland’s press conference before cancelling my subscription. If the word “bromides” is in his analysis, that’s it. I quit. I acknowledge I have gotten a lot out of this newsletter over the past year, but dissing the justice department and its leader, with no facts to do so (just impatience), not to mention Robert’s disregard for the operational undertaking of running the justice department, is a step too far for me…ranting like the right.

Expand full comment
author

Hi, Barbara. Thanks for your note. My view of Garland's speech is that because he said he would pursue those responsible "at any level" including those "who were not present" in the Capitol, we have to take him at his word, which I will do. That said, the reaction to his speech has been underwhelming, at best. I would be interested in your thoughts on this thread, retweeted by Laurence Tribe:

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1478822419175456773?t=wi_zrYzRGsLfCind9R3Yxw&s=19

Abramson makes a strong case that there is no active investigation of the leaders of the coup. He also makes a strong case that (as Robert Mueller learned) the failure to act quickly resulted in the loss of evidence and tampering with witnesses by Trump and others.

I don't think that my concern about the delay can be dismissed as "impatience." Trump is going to attempt another coup. He is also going to run for the GOP nomination, starting in less than a year. If you think it will be hard to prosecute Trump when he is not running for office, think about doing so when he is running for office. And if Trump wins in 2024 and the DOJ is still investigating, he will shut down the investigation.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Robert, for your patient reply to MY rant. I read every word of Seth’s analysis, and I fear that I’m one of the lemmings to whom Garland was addressing his speech. The downside of my read is that I’m feeling so much less confident in the DOJ being the pillar that can hold thru all this.

Expand full comment
Jan 5, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell

Re: Merrick garland

Can't Biden fire him and replace him?

If so, and given that he is still in place, maybe Biden knows that garland will soon take action??

Expand full comment
author

Yes. The confirmation of the next attorney genral would be ugly . The better course is for Garland to resign voluntarily, and allow an acting attorney general to take the reins at the DOJ by operation of law.

Expand full comment
Jan 5, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell

I am preparing to do something I almost never do - turn my TV on before mid afternoon. As Lawrence O'Donnell said to Rachel Maddow last night, I have absolutely NO expectations of the Merrick Garland attempt at a press conference. I expect nothing more than platitudes and excuses and certainly nothing of substance. I hope to be wrong. I hope to be surprised. But my expectations for this speech, as for the man himself, are so very low, I won't even be affected when my low expectations are met.

Expand full comment