Today’s Edition: Back on the home front . . . .

August 20, 2021

          Although the news on Thursday was dominated by the exit from Afghanistan, there are several important domestic stories that deserve attention before the weekend. Let’s take a look a those and then circle back to Afghanistan.

The “Audit” of Maricopa County presidential ballots will be released on Monday.

          The long-delayed “audit” of the 2020 presidential vote in Maricopa County is scheduled to be released on Monday. (Fair warning: The audit has missed deadlines before.) Given that the audit was funded and conducted by promoters of the Big Lie, we should expect a report that seeks to undermine the integrity of the vote in Maricopa County in 2020. In advance of the release of the report, state officials from both parties have released statements that have attacked the methodology, integrity, and objectivity of the audit. Politico has done a nice job of summarizing various state and local officials who have already attacked the audit. If you want to be prepared for the onslaught on Monday, check out Politico, “Arizona ‘bracing for impact’ of Trump-driven election report.”

Trump’s Big Lie continues to inspire terrorist threats.

          A man who claimed to have a bomb and grievances against Joe Biden engaged in a lengthy standoff with police near the Library of Congress. Per the NYTimes, the threat caused the closure of the Capitol complex and the Supreme Court. Although no bomb was found in the vehicle, the domestic terrorist did have components to build a bomb. One of the Republican members of Congress who helped to incite the January 6th assault on the Capitol, Mo Brooks, tweeted a statement about the bomb threat, saying that he “understands citizen anger directed at dictatorial Stalinism.” As of Thursday evening, Rep. Mo Brooks has not been suspended from Twitter despite expressing sympathy for a domestic terrorist. (At least Twitter is consistent; Twitter continues to allow the Taliban to use the social media platform to organize their takeover of Afghanistan.)

Three more U.S. Senators test positive for Covid.

          Three U.S. Senators announced on Thursday that they tested positive for Covid—Senators Wicker, King, and Hickenlooper. These multiple infections suggest that other U.S. Senators may have been exposed to the coronavirus in the Senate. In an institution that is tied at 50-50 between the Democratic and Republican caucuses, any serious illness (or worse) could change the balance of power in the Senate. For example, if California Senator Diane Feinstein became incapacitated by Covid, the Governor of California would appoint her replacement. The current California Governor, Gavin Newsom, is involved in a recall campaign that is statistically tied. If he is recalled, it is a certainty that he will be replaced by a Republican. Read on!

California’s Recall Campaign.

          I was deluged with emails from California Democrats who criticized my link to the LATimes editorial about voting in the California recall campaign. Everyone agrees that Democrats should vote NO on the first question on the ballot (Should Gavin Newsom be recalled?). The LATimes recommended that voters should vote on question two, which asks voters to select a replacement for Newsom IF he is recalled. Per the emails from California Democrats, the official party position is to vote NO on recall and leave blank the question about a potential successor. (“Vote NO and go.”)

          The guidance of the California Democratic Party makes perfect sense if you assume that Gavin Newsom will not be recalled—but it is poor advice if Newsom is recalled. As noted above, the polling on the recall is very close or statistically tied. Moreover, the only replacement candidates with a chance of winning are objectionable Republicans. The Republican currently leading the GOP pack is Larry Elder, who is a horrible and dangerous choice. The dozens of Democrats who sent emails offered varied rationales for not voting on a replacement candidate in the event the recall is successful. Here are the top four reasons offered:

• All of our energy should go into defeating the recall. Discussing what might happen if Newsom loses is a distraction.

• We shouldn’t vote for a moderate Republican to replace Newsom; we want Newsom to be replaced by the worst Republican imaginable because we will surely defeat the replacement in 2022.

• Any Republican replacement candidate will be harmless because Democrats control the legislature by wide margins.

• California’s recall process is unconstitutional, and the election will be overturned in the courts.

          Since I have faithfully set forth the official Democratic Party rationale, I would appreciate being taken off whatever listserv has posted my email address with instructions to educate me on the party line.

          I strongly disagree with the position of not voting on the replacement candidate. If you do not vote for a replacement candidate and the recall is successful, you are voting for Larry Elder to be California’s next governor. Elder has said that if he is elected, he will “end all mask and vaccine mandates, then take a break for breakfast.” His policies will increase the death toll in California due to the coronavirus. His social and political views are abhorrent. Elder believes the “ideal minimum wage” is $0.00. Women should be especially concerned about Elder, who said, “Women are easier for Democrats to sway because women know less than men about political issues, economics and current events.” Again, if you leave the second question blank and the recall is successful, you are voting for Larry Elder.

          California Democrats are in this bind because the Democratic Party—at Newsom’s instruction—refused to endorse a “fail-safe” Democratic candidate in the event Newsom loses. Hence, all of the replacement frontrunners are Republicans in a state with an overwhelming Democratic registration advantage!! Newsom’s “Vote NO and go” policy is selfish; it increases the likelihood that the recall will be defeated (which we all want) but will create chaos if Newsom loses. The Republican candidate currently polling in second place is the most moderate of the bunch, though he is still objectionable. So, if the recall succeeds, pick your poison: the worst imaginable arch-conservative Republican (Larry Elder, by default) or an objectionable moderate Republican (by choice).

          There are dozens of variations on the above arguments, and I heard them all today. So, if I didn’t mention your favorite argument for not voting for a replacement, trust me—I’ve heard it already. Given the volume of emails I received on this subject today, I just can’t respond to further entreaties to change my position.  

          Let me close with this thought: Remember that time we all thought it would be great if Republicans nominated Trump because he couldn’t possibly beat Hillary and he would destroy the Republican Party? Believing that Larry Elder will be harmless is the same dangerous thinking.

Afghanistan.

          If you are concerned about the events in Afghanistan, I recommend the following op-ed articles:

          Jennifer Rubin in WaPo, “A primer on false narratives about Afghanistan.” (“And when former military or civilian leaders who never communicated the true state of affairs in Afghanistan for 20 years speak on the current situation, it behooves interviewers to ask: Did you lie, or did you not know the war was futile?”)

          Thomas Friedman in NYTimes, “Three People I Would Interview About Afghanistan.” Friedman says he would interview LBJ, China’s President Xi, and Mohammed Zahir Shah (the last king of Afghanistan, deposed in 1973). This is a brilliant essay that brings historical perspective to the situation in Afghanistan. Thanks to a reader for recommending the article. I learned a lot by reading it.

          Judd Legum, Popular Information, “Where are the anti-war voices?” Per Legum’s reporting, major media outlets are refusing to book guests critical of the Afghan war, giving time exclusively to Biden’s critics on withdrawal. Per one booking agent who regularly placed opponents of the war on liberal media in the past, “I’ve been in political media for over two decades, and I have never experienced something like this before. The media has coalesced around a narrative, and any threat to that narrative needs to be shut out.”

The pandemic.

          I took some comfort from Paul Krugman’s op-ed in the NYTimes, “The Quiet Rage of the Responsible.” Krugman poses the following question about the increasing anger and frustration of responsible citizens against anti-vaxxers: “The question is whether this entirely justified anger — call it the rage of the responsible — will have a political impact.” There is increasing evidence that anti-vaccine and anti-mask proponents are losing the battle for public opinion.

          Krugman refers to an Ipsos poll that shows that two-thirds of Americans support state and local governments requiring masks to be worn in all public places. The poll also shows that 40% of Republicans support mask mandates in public places. While that number is regrettably low, it represents a significant deviation from the party line for a party not known for independent thinking among its base. To the extent that the GOP has made anti-vaccination and anti-masks its platform for 2022, it is on shaky ground.

Volunteer opportunity.

          Virginia is holding a general election on November 2, 2021 for the following offices: Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and House of Delegates. Vote Forward is actively seeking volunteers for its letter writing effort to “send letters to encourage voters from underrepresented communities in Virginia to request their absentee ballots” and to “encourage Democratic-leaning registered voters in Virginia to request their absentee ballots.” Check it out at Vote Forward. Help if you can.

Concluding Thoughts.

In yesterday’s newsletter, I mentioned that Rep. Val Demings is mounting a challenge to Republican Senator Marco Rubio in 2022. A reader responded to that prompt by signing up to donate monthly to Deming’s campaign through Val Demings —via ActBlue. He added a note asking me to encourage other readers to do the same—if they have the financial means to do so. Not everyone has the resources to donate to campaigns, but if you are able to do so, giving early and regularly makes a difference. First, “early money” allows candidates to build a campaign infrastructure to do the heavy lifting in the final months of the campaign. Second, regular donations allow campaigns to create budgets and build certainty into their finances. Republicans have a fundraising advantage going into 2022. Let’s see if we can close that gap.

          My Managing Editor and I have been doing double duty with arrival of our two granddaughters. We are looking forward to the weekend for some rest and relaxation. We hope each of you can find time for calm and renewal over the weekend.

          Talk to you on Monday!