After reading the thoughtful comments of the newsletter, I contacted The New York Times. My blurb—As a long-time subscriber to The New York Times, I am disheartened that you did not make the former president’s blatant admissions of guilt front page news with a headline that reflected the true risk to Democracy. The New York Times’s reporting, or lack there of, is furthering the demise of a representative government. I am seriously considering cancelling my membership to your paper.
Feb 1, 2022·edited Feb 1, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
I write to comment on the opening remark in the concluding section of today’s newsletter that treats hope and optimism as synonymous. In my experience, hope has nothing to do with optimism. For one to be optimistic, one would have to find enough evidence to infer things are going to get better. From my perspective, that evidence neither exists when I assess the current state of America, nor does it exist in assessing the plight of the human species overall. Still, quoting public intellectual and Professor Cornel West, “We can be prisoners of hope” even as we call optimism into question. For me , a “prisoner of hope” is someone who summons the will and the courage to persist because the person believes the struggle is right and just and moral.
In my experience, hope and optimism are related, but I think focusing on the distinction misses the point. My point is that we have a choice about how we react in the face of difficult times. I said that having hope was a choice, just as, "summoning the will and courage to persist" is a volitional act.
Robert, In contending with the will to hope and the will to know, it can be difficult to arrive at hope. A major concern of mine about America is its corruption. For how long has the system, the power players and greed ground down the lives of a large portion of Americans? How many in Trump's cult have gotten there by their loss of hope for over 45 years driven by unfulfilled promises; the disappearance of unions and communities, along with economic insecurity replaced by scapegoating, anger, white supremacy and propaganda?
Robert, For me, the very meaningful distinction between optimism and hope boils down to the question I routinely ask myself: Where would I be if, at every step, what upheld me was the hope of succeeding? To clarify, I have found, even under the most severe conditions, that the choice either to submit or not to submit, can outweigh the circumstances themselves.
Barbara, I wish to understand what you have expressed but having trouble. Is it that your will to decide - how you feel inside - is the decider and separate from whatever the circumstances may be?
Thank you for this. I have to say that I am tempted to cancel my subscription to the NYT as I begin to wonder what and whom they stand up for. A litany of Biden’s perceived mistakes, a lot of which are not caused by him, is a free gift to Republican rhetoric .
Perhaps before canceling the subscription, a more hopeful action approach might include writing a letter listing concerns. Expressing your view has greater potential for effecting the change desired than a cancellation. Just a thought.
Following up on my own suggestion, after having myself, just last week, subscribed to the NYT. After reading Kit’s comment and making mine, I went to the ‘Contact Us’, Report a Correction or Share Feedback, and sent this:
The former guy’s comments at his rally over the weekend were blatant admissions of his attempt to thwart our United States Democracy. Instead of front-page coverage, you buried the breaking story in the ‘Politics’ section of Sunday’s Edition. This man foments fear and intimidation toward prosecutors investigating his crimes and you downplay the story? As a new subscriber to the NYT, I am already sorely disappointed.
Done. Mine is but one, if another, then two. There is power in numbers.
So, write a Comment, give them your feedback. Today I will do both as well as write by hand a note to A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher, NYT, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018.
If we all do a little, we can do a lot!
Note: I have no objection to the NYT publishing Caldwell's Op-Ed. It is important to hear/read opposing views and how they interpret information. At the same time, I would like the NYT to present the opposing view - just as Robert does in today's newsletter. Then, we, the NYT readers, can decide.
As a noteworthy update, I received a personal reply from Dan Slotnik at the NYT. His thoughtful remarks restore my regard for the NYT, as it proves they truly do hear, and want to hear, from their readership. Let us take this as a green light to ramp up offering feedback to all media outlets.
A refreshing dose of rationality to start the day, thanks Robert. I'll cheerfully admit though that hope will spring higher as soon as the former president and his clique are locked up.
When I heard what that mobster had to say, especially the part about calling himself the victim of racism because the prosecutors are Black, I was infuriated! It made me realize just how fragile this experiment if democracy is. I am a septuagenarian who has grown to accept democracy as a fact of American life. Now I see that a mobster can preach racist thuggery openly and be honored for his sentiments. Yesterday I wondered to myself what life would be like in America if the Trumpsters control the media and our schools. Bring out the dreidels.
Have you also heard the "white grievance" rant by Ted Cruz against a black woman nominee for the Supreme Court? He deliberately says that white men and white women should be outraged because President Biden said he would nominate a black woman. They are saying the quiet part out loud with a trumpet.
Wonderful message, Robert, and thank you for quoting Ms. Solnit, one of my favorite writers. You have trained me—and I am sure many others—to be ambassadors of hope. As for the NYT, I cancelled my subscription last month. My world does not center on NYC, not even culturally, any more.
Thank you for summarizing Mr. al-Gharbi's opinion article and the link to his piece. I read the full article as you encouraged. I do appreciate his empirical approach and conclusions that based upon the events over the past year and a half that indeed we may not be on the brink of a civil war. As a sociology professor at an esteemed university Mr. al-Gharbi's viewpoint should be given much more weight than some of the hysterical headlines that are often heard or read these days.
As a retired clinical psychologist who has practiced psychology in a private office most of his life, I don't have the credentials nor academic background as Mr. al-Gharbi has. I do want to offer another counter narrative to his opinion. As a student in an Ivy League school during the 60's when campuses were scenes of violent protests against the Vietnam war and other issues, I witnessed the ability of a relatively small group of radical students, Students for a Democratic Society, through strong rhetoric, non-violent protest and, at times, violent behavior successfully radicalize a much broader and less radical group of students. As a conservative at that time, I mostly observed what was taking place (attended some mass rallies), concerned about the issues debated, but abhorred the means by which a small group of people were able to effectively foment a revolution.
I am not a scholar of history but have read about the beginnings of our Civil War. It was not an overnight process. Opinions, while not spread by social media with instant access, were based upon faulty reasoning, misinformation and disinformation. As events over time occurred and tensions between the North and South ratcheted up, the demonizing of the "other" continued over years, the impossible happened and we Americans entered into our bloodiest war ever fought, a war against each other.
While Mr. al-Gharbi is right to argue that the events of January 6 do not in and of themselves necessarily lead to civil war, and that responding to pollsters might be a way to not share what we really believe, but rather a way of representing the political tribe we belong to, I, for one, am not convinced that we should all take a deep breath, relax and collectively state, "Aw shucks, all that talk of civil war is just headline sensationalism."
I have appreciated your continual efforts, Robert, to ground your readers not in panic or anxiety (you would make a good therapist and with the right credentials, I would have loved to have you as a colleague in my former mental health practice!). I am weary of polarizing headlines and "news that bleeds"...and yet, we live in a society in which incivility has become a norm on social media and in the public square. We have a broad spectrum of Republicans willing to espouse at some level that the election results of 2020 were fraudulent and not to be believed, even if their espousal is some kind of political jab at us liberals. And while the events of January 6, 2021, could have been much more violent than it turned out, I believe and many others believe, that this event may be simply a warmup to a series of forthcoming events that could be even more violent and polarizing.
Like you I don't want to live each day in needless anxiety or panic, leading to a form of despair and passivity. I also don't want to live in denial. My current view of our political situation is this: while we may not be on the brink of a civil war, there are many indicators in our increasingly fractious nation that could propel us into an increasingly dark and violent time, not a civil war as fought 150 years ago, but some version of it, with violent consequences. As you continue to coach us, this should activate us all the more to engage politically and civilly within our families, communities and country to reverse this trend.
I would have appreciated Mr. al-Gharbi's article more if he had not only challenged us with his empirical findings but also had placed them within a broader, historical context. No, civil war is not impending, but without significant interventions by Americans who care, we could end up in much more bloodshed than what was witnessed over a year ago in the Capitol building.
Thanks again for your daily blogs and your call to hopeful action!
Hi, Peter. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree with almost everything you say above--except for the notion that anyone is asserting, "All that talk of civil war is sensationalism and headlines." I am an optimist but also a realist. In saying that we are not going to have a civil war, I am not saying that our nation will not experience scattered political violence, political turbulence, and civil unrest. If someone wants to write a headline that says "US on brink of scattered political violence" or "US entering period of political turbulence" that would be fair and reasonable. But given that headline writers choose to use the words "civil war", I am going to hold them accountable for their sensationalism, sloppiness, and alarmism. They are doing a disservice and contributing to the problem by normalizing the notion that violence is a likely solution to our political challenges.
Second, you are right that our nation is "increasingly fractious" and could be "propelled into a dark and turbulent time." But was that not the same situation--but worse--in the 1950s and 1960 with violence against civil rights marchers, and the 1970s with the Viet Nam war? I read a statistic yesterday that I wish I had included in the newsletter. In 2021, the US experienced the FEWEST deaths due to political violence in the last 50 years. (Perhaps that was in al-Gharbi's article.) So, I think we need to separate the amplification of the division in our nation from the reality on the ground. If we watched the violence of the 1960s unfold on our iPhones and in tweets, we would likewise feel that were living times of unprecedented division and violence. My point is not that the violence and division we are experience today isn't real or significant, it is that we have suffered and survived much worse. Let's keep that perspective as we worry whether our nation can survive its current challenges.
Robert, I am not convinced by your comparison of the 50's and 60's with today. You have not taken into account effects of technology; the loss of unions, communities and local journalism; , the extraordinary of transfer of wealth; social media and fox; the transformation of the Republican Party and hardened social discord. What do we have in common? Trump's base as been fueled over the last 45 years. America's systemic corruption requires full-scale change. What is the possibility of that? Step by step at the 11th hour?
Right now, the headline in the NYT online is “Trump had role in weighing proposals to seize voting machines.” That is very, very close to being enough evidence on its own to convict him of conspiring to overthrow the United States government. Taken with his remarks over the past weekend, it probably is sufficient for conviction. While I’m sure that those in the Criminal Division of the DOJ would like an elegant prosecution for the range of the Former Guy’s crimes, there’s a virtue to simplicity. Indict and try him for conspiracy. More might be desirable, but Is not needed. On the other hand, a reckoning for his crimes is.
Thank you for this well-articulated (as usual) big-picture perspective on this facet of the "Trumpism" phenomenon. I am always enlightened and encouraged by your thoughts and those of Heather Cox Richardson; they are clean rarified air above the stench of yellow-journalism-infested social media and conservative "alternate reality spin" sites.
To the delight and hope of many, the Jan6th committee is continually finding nails for the coffin of the political careers of Trump and his key allies... can't wait for the hammering process.
Your assessment is so true, not only for the New York Times, but for many of the local papers where many people actually get their news. In today's Tampa Bay Times there was not one word about this grievous threat made by the former president, nor anything about the documents found threatening to seize voting machines. Instead, there was a big article about how bad inflation is. Here is a link to a story written by "Press Run" which details how the Biden Boom is being ignored. https://pressrun.media/p/biden-boom-hits-new-heights-press
I would like to know from readers here how we can get the press to actually report the true stories? I have tried many letters to the editor to no avail, so instead of banging my head against a wall, I wonder what other ideas you all have.
Not to give credit for disingenuous and intellectually dishonest logic, but Trump (or whoever wrote the line about Pence’s legal authority to overturn the election) has a point, I.e. that the proposed legislation making what he wanted to happen expressly legal arguably implies that it wasn’t clearly illegal at the time.
Hi, Cathy. I understand the logic of that argument, but I don't agree with it. Here's why: The Constitution prescribes how the president is elected. Nowhere does it say "And, then, the Vice President gets to make his own decision about who the president is by deciding whose votes count"--which is what Trump asserted. The Electoral Count Act was intended to implement the Constitution. The fact that the ECA doesn't expressly prohibit the VP from rejecting votes does not mean that the VP has the power to do so. Moreover, the ECA expressly gives Congress the power to rule on objections, NOT the V.P. Under ordinary rules of statutory construction, Trump's reading of the statute is laughable.
The ECA needs to be modified because it was drafted in the 1800s in response to a particular electoral crisis. It did not then and does not now address the full range of procedural ambiguities that can arise. The argument that Trump made over the weekend sounds like it was written by John Eastman, who drafted the "six point plan" for overturning the election--a memo so patently wrong that it would have earned an F in law school. Even Eastman now says that he advised Trump against following the six point plan in the memo. (Which raises the question, was he lying then, or is he lying now?) As proposals to amend the ECA take shape, I will write about it in more detail.
Robert, thank you for linking to the interview with Rebecca Solnit at the end of your newsletter. She is so right about despair and cynicism. Where does that get us? I know you often tell your readers to stop wringing their hands and do something. There are so many opportunites, as you've pointed out. You introduced me to Jessica Craven (incredible!) who introduced me to the Environmental Voters Project who inspired me to sign up to write postcards. Last night I spent a pleasant hour on Zoom writing postcards with about 12 other people from around the country. I was pleasantly surprised at the feeling of comraderie and hope that I gained from that small exchange - as well as the satisfaction of doing something!
Let's talk about top aide to Pence, Marc Short, and his in-person interview with the Jan. 6th Committee: When will the Committee have enough evidence to present its case to the public? Hearings have to be on TV during prime viewing hours! Everyone - especially Republican office holders - need to see the full plot by Trump to overthrow the election in 2020.
This is over-used, but: "The perfect IS the enemy of the good." With the upcoming mid-term elections down the road, let's just get as much as we can out there and dare the Republican office-holders to continue supporting Trump's Big Lie. Talking to you, Susan Collins.
After reading the thoughtful comments of the newsletter, I contacted The New York Times. My blurb—As a long-time subscriber to The New York Times, I am disheartened that you did not make the former president’s blatant admissions of guilt front page news with a headline that reflected the true risk to Democracy. The New York Times’s reporting, or lack there of, is furthering the demise of a representative government. I am seriously considering cancelling my membership to your paper.
I write to comment on the opening remark in the concluding section of today’s newsletter that treats hope and optimism as synonymous. In my experience, hope has nothing to do with optimism. For one to be optimistic, one would have to find enough evidence to infer things are going to get better. From my perspective, that evidence neither exists when I assess the current state of America, nor does it exist in assessing the plight of the human species overall. Still, quoting public intellectual and Professor Cornel West, “We can be prisoners of hope” even as we call optimism into question. For me , a “prisoner of hope” is someone who summons the will and the courage to persist because the person believes the struggle is right and just and moral.
In my experience, hope and optimism are related, but I think focusing on the distinction misses the point. My point is that we have a choice about how we react in the face of difficult times. I said that having hope was a choice, just as, "summoning the will and courage to persist" is a volitional act.
Robert, In contending with the will to hope and the will to know, it can be difficult to arrive at hope. A major concern of mine about America is its corruption. For how long has the system, the power players and greed ground down the lives of a large portion of Americans? How many in Trump's cult have gotten there by their loss of hope for over 45 years driven by unfulfilled promises; the disappearance of unions and communities, along with economic insecurity replaced by scapegoating, anger, white supremacy and propaganda?
Fern, Your perceptive comment greatly helped me to gather my thoughts to reply to Robert. So, thank you.
Robert, For me, the very meaningful distinction between optimism and hope boils down to the question I routinely ask myself: Where would I be if, at every step, what upheld me was the hope of succeeding? To clarify, I have found, even under the most severe conditions, that the choice either to submit or not to submit, can outweigh the circumstances themselves.
Barbara, I wish to understand what you have expressed but having trouble. Is it that your will to decide - how you feel inside - is the decider and separate from whatever the circumstances may be?
Fern, I simply was saying that even in practically hopeless situations, there’s meaning in summoning the strength to persevere.
Thank you, Barbara. That is a deep and powerful source of reinforcement.
Thank you for this. I have to say that I am tempted to cancel my subscription to the NYT as I begin to wonder what and whom they stand up for. A litany of Biden’s perceived mistakes, a lot of which are not caused by him, is a free gift to Republican rhetoric .
Perhaps before canceling the subscription, a more hopeful action approach might include writing a letter listing concerns. Expressing your view has greater potential for effecting the change desired than a cancellation. Just a thought.
Following up on my own suggestion, after having myself, just last week, subscribed to the NYT. After reading Kit’s comment and making mine, I went to the ‘Contact Us’, Report a Correction or Share Feedback, and sent this:
The former guy’s comments at his rally over the weekend were blatant admissions of his attempt to thwart our United States Democracy. Instead of front-page coverage, you buried the breaking story in the ‘Politics’ section of Sunday’s Edition. This man foments fear and intimidation toward prosecutors investigating his crimes and you downplay the story? As a new subscriber to the NYT, I am already sorely disappointed.
Done. Mine is but one, if another, then two. There is power in numbers.
Thanks, Ada. Leading by example!
I am a life long NYT subscriber and I agree completely - don't cancel your subscription - write them instead!
I often write in the Comments section of an Op-Ed or article. And sometimes I write a letter to the Editor or comment in the We Want to Hear From You webpage (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/homepage/contact-newsroom.html).
So, write a Comment, give them your feedback. Today I will do both as well as write by hand a note to A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher, NYT, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018.
If we all do a little, we can do a lot!
Note: I have no objection to the NYT publishing Caldwell's Op-Ed. It is important to hear/read opposing views and how they interpret information. At the same time, I would like the NYT to present the opposing view - just as Robert does in today's newsletter. Then, we, the NYT readers, can decide.
Thank you Andrew, for more avenues to leave feedback. I will follow up with your suggestions as well.
I agree with and appreciate your comment: ‘If we all do a little, we can do a lot!’
As a noteworthy update, I received a personal reply from Dan Slotnik at the NYT. His thoughtful remarks restore my regard for the NYT, as it proves they truly do hear, and want to hear, from their readership. Let us take this as a green light to ramp up offering feedback to all media outlets.
Andrew’s comment below says it well:
‘If we all do a little, we can do a lot!’
I also received a reply, perhaps the same one. Like you, I did feel heard and that the NYT was listening to its readers.
I will. And then I will use the money to buy chocolates.
I think I will. My choices as a consumer are a way to vote. I can buy chocolates and read Robert.
A refreshing dose of rationality to start the day, thanks Robert. I'll cheerfully admit though that hope will spring higher as soon as the former president and his clique are locked up.
When I heard what that mobster had to say, especially the part about calling himself the victim of racism because the prosecutors are Black, I was infuriated! It made me realize just how fragile this experiment if democracy is. I am a septuagenarian who has grown to accept democracy as a fact of American life. Now I see that a mobster can preach racist thuggery openly and be honored for his sentiments. Yesterday I wondered to myself what life would be like in America if the Trumpsters control the media and our schools. Bring out the dreidels.
Have you also heard the "white grievance" rant by Ted Cruz against a black woman nominee for the Supreme Court? He deliberately says that white men and white women should be outraged because President Biden said he would nominate a black woman. They are saying the quiet part out loud with a trumpet.
Your headline today is the right one.
Wonderful message, Robert, and thank you for quoting Ms. Solnit, one of my favorite writers. You have trained me—and I am sure many others—to be ambassadors of hope. As for the NYT, I cancelled my subscription last month. My world does not center on NYC, not even culturally, any more.
Thank you for summarizing Mr. al-Gharbi's opinion article and the link to his piece. I read the full article as you encouraged. I do appreciate his empirical approach and conclusions that based upon the events over the past year and a half that indeed we may not be on the brink of a civil war. As a sociology professor at an esteemed university Mr. al-Gharbi's viewpoint should be given much more weight than some of the hysterical headlines that are often heard or read these days.
As a retired clinical psychologist who has practiced psychology in a private office most of his life, I don't have the credentials nor academic background as Mr. al-Gharbi has. I do want to offer another counter narrative to his opinion. As a student in an Ivy League school during the 60's when campuses were scenes of violent protests against the Vietnam war and other issues, I witnessed the ability of a relatively small group of radical students, Students for a Democratic Society, through strong rhetoric, non-violent protest and, at times, violent behavior successfully radicalize a much broader and less radical group of students. As a conservative at that time, I mostly observed what was taking place (attended some mass rallies), concerned about the issues debated, but abhorred the means by which a small group of people were able to effectively foment a revolution.
I am not a scholar of history but have read about the beginnings of our Civil War. It was not an overnight process. Opinions, while not spread by social media with instant access, were based upon faulty reasoning, misinformation and disinformation. As events over time occurred and tensions between the North and South ratcheted up, the demonizing of the "other" continued over years, the impossible happened and we Americans entered into our bloodiest war ever fought, a war against each other.
While Mr. al-Gharbi is right to argue that the events of January 6 do not in and of themselves necessarily lead to civil war, and that responding to pollsters might be a way to not share what we really believe, but rather a way of representing the political tribe we belong to, I, for one, am not convinced that we should all take a deep breath, relax and collectively state, "Aw shucks, all that talk of civil war is just headline sensationalism."
I have appreciated your continual efforts, Robert, to ground your readers not in panic or anxiety (you would make a good therapist and with the right credentials, I would have loved to have you as a colleague in my former mental health practice!). I am weary of polarizing headlines and "news that bleeds"...and yet, we live in a society in which incivility has become a norm on social media and in the public square. We have a broad spectrum of Republicans willing to espouse at some level that the election results of 2020 were fraudulent and not to be believed, even if their espousal is some kind of political jab at us liberals. And while the events of January 6, 2021, could have been much more violent than it turned out, I believe and many others believe, that this event may be simply a warmup to a series of forthcoming events that could be even more violent and polarizing.
Like you I don't want to live each day in needless anxiety or panic, leading to a form of despair and passivity. I also don't want to live in denial. My current view of our political situation is this: while we may not be on the brink of a civil war, there are many indicators in our increasingly fractious nation that could propel us into an increasingly dark and violent time, not a civil war as fought 150 years ago, but some version of it, with violent consequences. As you continue to coach us, this should activate us all the more to engage politically and civilly within our families, communities and country to reverse this trend.
I would have appreciated Mr. al-Gharbi's article more if he had not only challenged us with his empirical findings but also had placed them within a broader, historical context. No, civil war is not impending, but without significant interventions by Americans who care, we could end up in much more bloodshed than what was witnessed over a year ago in the Capitol building.
Thanks again for your daily blogs and your call to hopeful action!
Peter Everts
Hi, Peter. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree with almost everything you say above--except for the notion that anyone is asserting, "All that talk of civil war is sensationalism and headlines." I am an optimist but also a realist. In saying that we are not going to have a civil war, I am not saying that our nation will not experience scattered political violence, political turbulence, and civil unrest. If someone wants to write a headline that says "US on brink of scattered political violence" or "US entering period of political turbulence" that would be fair and reasonable. But given that headline writers choose to use the words "civil war", I am going to hold them accountable for their sensationalism, sloppiness, and alarmism. They are doing a disservice and contributing to the problem by normalizing the notion that violence is a likely solution to our political challenges.
Second, you are right that our nation is "increasingly fractious" and could be "propelled into a dark and turbulent time." But was that not the same situation--but worse--in the 1950s and 1960 with violence against civil rights marchers, and the 1970s with the Viet Nam war? I read a statistic yesterday that I wish I had included in the newsletter. In 2021, the US experienced the FEWEST deaths due to political violence in the last 50 years. (Perhaps that was in al-Gharbi's article.) So, I think we need to separate the amplification of the division in our nation from the reality on the ground. If we watched the violence of the 1960s unfold on our iPhones and in tweets, we would likewise feel that were living times of unprecedented division and violence. My point is not that the violence and division we are experience today isn't real or significant, it is that we have suffered and survived much worse. Let's keep that perspective as we worry whether our nation can survive its current challenges.
Robert, I am not convinced by your comparison of the 50's and 60's with today. You have not taken into account effects of technology; the loss of unions, communities and local journalism; , the extraordinary of transfer of wealth; social media and fox; the transformation of the Republican Party and hardened social discord. What do we have in common? Trump's base as been fueled over the last 45 years. America's systemic corruption requires full-scale change. What is the possibility of that? Step by step at the 11th hour?
Right now, the headline in the NYT online is “Trump had role in weighing proposals to seize voting machines.” That is very, very close to being enough evidence on its own to convict him of conspiring to overthrow the United States government. Taken with his remarks over the past weekend, it probably is sufficient for conviction. While I’m sure that those in the Criminal Division of the DOJ would like an elegant prosecution for the range of the Former Guy’s crimes, there’s a virtue to simplicity. Indict and try him for conspiracy. More might be desirable, but Is not needed. On the other hand, a reckoning for his crimes is.
Thank you for this well-articulated (as usual) big-picture perspective on this facet of the "Trumpism" phenomenon. I am always enlightened and encouraged by your thoughts and those of Heather Cox Richardson; they are clean rarified air above the stench of yellow-journalism-infested social media and conservative "alternate reality spin" sites.
To the delight and hope of many, the Jan6th committee is continually finding nails for the coffin of the political careers of Trump and his key allies... can't wait for the hammering process.
Having hope as an assignment is really really helpful. We always have choices.
Your assessment is so true, not only for the New York Times, but for many of the local papers where many people actually get their news. In today's Tampa Bay Times there was not one word about this grievous threat made by the former president, nor anything about the documents found threatening to seize voting machines. Instead, there was a big article about how bad inflation is. Here is a link to a story written by "Press Run" which details how the Biden Boom is being ignored. https://pressrun.media/p/biden-boom-hits-new-heights-press
I would like to know from readers here how we can get the press to actually report the true stories? I have tried many letters to the editor to no avail, so instead of banging my head against a wall, I wonder what other ideas you all have.
Not to give credit for disingenuous and intellectually dishonest logic, but Trump (or whoever wrote the line about Pence’s legal authority to overturn the election) has a point, I.e. that the proposed legislation making what he wanted to happen expressly legal arguably implies that it wasn’t clearly illegal at the time.
Hi, Cathy. I understand the logic of that argument, but I don't agree with it. Here's why: The Constitution prescribes how the president is elected. Nowhere does it say "And, then, the Vice President gets to make his own decision about who the president is by deciding whose votes count"--which is what Trump asserted. The Electoral Count Act was intended to implement the Constitution. The fact that the ECA doesn't expressly prohibit the VP from rejecting votes does not mean that the VP has the power to do so. Moreover, the ECA expressly gives Congress the power to rule on objections, NOT the V.P. Under ordinary rules of statutory construction, Trump's reading of the statute is laughable.
The ECA needs to be modified because it was drafted in the 1800s in response to a particular electoral crisis. It did not then and does not now address the full range of procedural ambiguities that can arise. The argument that Trump made over the weekend sounds like it was written by John Eastman, who drafted the "six point plan" for overturning the election--a memo so patently wrong that it would have earned an F in law school. Even Eastman now says that he advised Trump against following the six point plan in the memo. (Which raises the question, was he lying then, or is he lying now?) As proposals to amend the ECA take shape, I will write about it in more detail.
No reply was needed but thanks for taking the time. We are on the same page.
thanks for quoting Rebecca Solnit! YES!!!!
Follow her in The Guardian. She has been a voice in the desert.
Robert, thank you for linking to the interview with Rebecca Solnit at the end of your newsletter. She is so right about despair and cynicism. Where does that get us? I know you often tell your readers to stop wringing their hands and do something. There are so many opportunites, as you've pointed out. You introduced me to Jessica Craven (incredible!) who introduced me to the Environmental Voters Project who inspired me to sign up to write postcards. Last night I spent a pleasant hour on Zoom writing postcards with about 12 other people from around the country. I was pleasantly surprised at the feeling of comraderie and hope that I gained from that small exchange - as well as the satisfaction of doing something!
Let's talk about top aide to Pence, Marc Short, and his in-person interview with the Jan. 6th Committee: When will the Committee have enough evidence to present its case to the public? Hearings have to be on TV during prime viewing hours! Everyone - especially Republican office holders - need to see the full plot by Trump to overthrow the election in 2020.
This is over-used, but: "The perfect IS the enemy of the good." With the upcoming mid-term elections down the road, let's just get as much as we can out there and dare the Republican office-holders to continue supporting Trump's Big Lie. Talking to you, Susan Collins.