Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

President Chimp On Crack continues to want us to not fear COVID-19 at all. Today, I even got a form email from one of his idiot sons telling me how if I contribute some money I can get VIP treatment in Florida during the Republican Party's Jacksonville Goon-Fest in August. Keep in mind that I have no idea why anyone would ever want to go to Florida at anytime, but hang out with a bunch of white supremacy Q-Anon conspiracy freaks in a place that is reporting over 10,000 new cases of COVID-19 per day? Nope! I don't think so.

Now I know that large sans mask virus-spreading events are Traitor Don's specialty, but I wouldn't go to Jacksonville even if they gave me the Bleach-In-A-Cup concession. In some places in this country now, we'd be safer if we attempted to play frogger by hopping across an Interstate Highway while blindfolded. But that's Trump. He'd enjoy watching, just as he can't wait to see who loves him so much that they'll risk their life just to cheer him. That all goes hand in hand with his talking down testing for the virus. In his sick mind, the more cases the better; just don't call the results what they are. That would be bad for something he cares mightily about, his numbers.

What Trump does want us to fear, of course, is each other. He just devoted not one but two speeches this weekend to fearing "the other;" a fine way to celebrate July 4th, a very fine way. As Traitor Don channelled Hitler on the White House lawn nearly word for word, he especially emphasized eliminating "the radical left, the marxists, the anarchists, the agitators, the looters...", He was stoking the fearing of "The Other." In other words, fear "The Brown!" And "The Black." Definitely "The Black." Fear of a Black Planet! He especially moaned about his disappearing beloved monuments to slavery and white supremacy. Oh, and did I mention "The Chinese?" Yeah, when Jacksonville comes, he'll be leading a Kung Flu cheer every night. Expect Kayleigh McEnany to do something tasteless and racist involving her fingers and her eyes, too. When republicans gather in groups, it's always check your sanity at the door, as if anyone who wanted to go would have an ounce of sanity to begin with. Too late to test for that. The craziest of them all infests the oval office and no one wants to admit just how maximum crazy he is or do anything to stop it. His own party embraces him like a messiah while he fantasizes himself as the fifth head on Mt. Rushmore, bigger, of course.

That all leads me back to tonight's meme and the issue of testing for things. Tonight's meme is pure Republican logic. If you don't test for pregnancy... well, you won't be pregnant. Health and responsibility out the window! Problem solved. Who needs a crib? Who needs an abortion? No test. No fetus. No fetus. No baby! Life is so simple in MAGA world. Just ask that nurse. See where it says MAGA Nurse on her uniform? Cure for cancer? No problem. Just don't look for it! What other possible problems can be made to go away if we just stop testing? Drunk driving? Stop pulling those drunks over? No more breathalyzer tests! Those drunks are exercising their rights! Who cares if anybody dies? Now, THAT'S the Republican Spirit! We didn't test Trump for sanity, therefore he's sane, right?

52 Senate Republicans Are Both Political Cowards And Willing To Put Their Dying Party Over The Country And The People

-by Chip Proser

The 3 Senate Democrats-- Doug Jones (AL), Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ)-- who seemed up-in-the-air about the impeachment vote, all voted "guilty," as did Republican Mitt Romney (UT). Why didn't more Republicans do what they knew was right? Just going by what they've said publicly-- certainly Susan Collins (ME), Lamar Alexander (TN), Ben Sasse (NE), Rob Portman (OH) and Lisa (AK)-- we know they knew full well what Trump is. I assume way more than 20 of the Republicans know. Was it just cowardice?

Pramila Jayapal isn't a senator yet, but she's the well-respected congresswoman from Seattle, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a member of the House Judiciary Committee. "Instead of showing courage," she told her constituents yesterday, "all but one Republican senator today exemplified cowardice. In putting party and politics over country and Constitution, Republicans drove a stake in the heart of our democracy. The case for convicting and removing President Trump was overwhelming and irrefutable: President Trump endangered the sanctity of our elections by inviting foreign interference in our most sacred democratic institution. He betrayed our national security, violated the sacred trust of the American people, and threatened the very future of our democracy. At every turn, the President and his Administration obstructed the House-- refusing to turn over even a single document or provide even a single witness. In spite of this unprecedented obstruction, the House did its job and Donald Trump will forever be an impeached president. Since the House impeached President Trump, more and more damning information about the President’s abuse of power has come to light. Instead of pursuing the full truth, Senate Republicans eagerly enlisted themselves to be President Trump’s co-conspirators-- covering up the President’s misconduct without even caring to find out the extent of his misconduct. It is a disgrace that Mitch McConnell refused to give the American people what they deserve and what the Constitution demands: a fair trial with witnesses and impartial justice. President Trump will be held accountable one way or another-- whether through the courts or the ballot box-- and the American people and history will not forget the Republicans’ cowardice."

Sherrod Brown of Ohio, on the other hand, is a senator. He penned an OpEd for the NY Times yesterday, In Private, Republicans Admit They Acquitted Trump Out Of Fear. He said that in the Senate "fear does the business." He asked his readers to "Think back to the fall of 2002, just a few weeks before that year’s crucial midterm elections, when the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq was up for a vote. A year after the 9/11 attacks, hundreds of members of the House and the Senate were about to face the voters of a country still traumatized by terrorism. Senator Patty Murray, a thoughtful Democrat from Washington State, still remembers 'the fear that dominated the Senate leading up to the Iraq war. You could feel it then,' she told me, 'and you can feel that fear now'-- chiefly among Senate Republicans."

For those of us who, from the start, questioned the wisdom of the Iraq war, our sense of isolation surely wasn’t much different from the loneliness felt in the 1950s by Senator Herbert Lehman of New York, who confronted Joe McCarthy’s demagogy only to be abandoned by so many of his colleagues. Nor was it so different from what Senator George McGovern must have felt when he announced his early opposition to the Vietnam War and was then labeled a traitor by many inside and outside of Congress.

History has indeed taught us that when it comes to the instincts that drive us, fear has no rival. As the lead House impeachment manager, Representative Adam Schiff, has noted, Robert Kennedy spoke of how “moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle.”

Playing on that fear, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, sought a quick impeachment trial for President Trump with as little attention to it as possible. Reporters, who usually roam the Capitol freely, have been cordoned off like cattle in select areas. Mr. McConnell ordered limited camera views in the Senate chamber so only presenters-- not absent senators-- could be spotted.

And barely a peep from Republican lawmakers.

One journalist remarked to me, “How in the world can these senators walk around here upright when they have no backbone?”

Fear has a way of bending us.

Late in the evening on day four of the trial I saw it, just 10 feet across the aisle from my seat at Desk 88, when Mr. Schiff told the Senate: “CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that Republican senators were warned, ‘Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.’” The response from Republicans was immediate and furious. Several groaned and protested and muttered, “Not true.” But pike or no pike, Mr. Schiff had clearly struck a nerve. (In the words of Lizzo: truth hurts.)

Of course, the Republican senators who have covered for Mr. Trump love what he delivers for them. But Vice President Mike Pence would give them the same judges, the same tax cuts, the same attacks on workers’ rights and the environment. So that’s not really the reason for their united chorus of “not guilty.”

For the stay-in-office-at-all-cost representatives and senators, fear is the motivator. They are afraid that Mr. Trump might give them a nickname like “Low Energy Jeb” and “Lyin’ Ted,” or that he might tweet about their disloyalty. Or — worst of all-- that he might come to their state to campaign against them in the Republican primary. They worry:

“Will the hosts on Fox attack me?”

“Will the mouthpieces on talk radio go after me?”

“Will the Twitter trolls turn their followers against me?”

My colleagues know they all just might. There’s an old Russian proverb: The tallest blade of grass is the first cut by the scythe. In private, many of my colleagues agree that the president is reckless and unfit. They admit his lies. And they acknowledge what he did was wrong. They know this president has done things Richard Nixon never did. And they know that more damning evidence is likely to come out.

So watching the mental contortions they perform to justify their votes is painful to behold: They claim that calling witnesses would have meant a never-ending trial. They tell us they’ve made up their minds, so why would we need new evidence? They say to convict this president now would lead to the impeachment of every future president-- as if every president will try to sell our national security to the highest bidder.

I have asked some of them, “If the Senate votes to acquit, what will you do to keep this president from getting worse?” Their responses have been shrugs and sheepish looks.

They stop short of explicitly saying that they are afraid. We all want to think that we always stand up for right and fight against wrong. But history does not look kindly on politicians who cannot fathom a fate worse than losing an upcoming election. They might claim fealty to their cause-- those tax cuts-- but often it’s a simple attachment to power that keeps them captured.

As Senator Murray said on the Senate floor in 2002, “We can act out of fear” or “we can stick to our principles.” Unfortunately, in this Senate, fear has had its way. In November, the American people will have theirs.

I've been talking with former Columbus mayor Teresa Tomlinson for about a year and a few weeks ago we sat down for a relaxing dinner. She's running for a Georgia U.S. Senate seat that's currently held by a total 100% Trump enabler, David Perdue. Her campaign motto is all about gumption but as we were getting to know each other she wrote a guest post for this blog, Crippling Political Fear. Back in July, she wrote that "It’s fear that cripples the Democratic Party. Fear of our policies, fear of who we are, and fear of the Republicans. Yes, fear is what has politically cost us in the last many election cycles. One cannot lead if one is afraid. The thing about leadership is that people want their leaders to be brave. They care less about what you think on the issues than whether you have the moxie to fight for them and the strength of conviction to tell them what you really think."

She was admiring The Squad because they are "fearless about their beliefs. They refuse to be bullied, and that is dangerous to the Republican playbook of shaming scared Democrats into milk toast, mealy-mouthed, baby-splitting positions that are equivocal and stand for nothing. American voters revile those who won’t tell the people what they think. Even if you don’t support the policies-- or certainly some of the statements-- of The Squad, you can’t deny that you appreciate that they unabashedly tell the world what they think."

A classic example of this crippling Democratic political plague of fear is 2014 Democratic Senate candidate Alison Grimes, who refused to say whether she voted for the leader of her party, the two-term first black president, Barack Obama. And, the legion of Democratic candidates that year who refused to say they supported the Affordable Care Act (ACA), because the polling showed it was unpopular. Did we think any voter believed that a Democrat running for federal office didn’t fundamentally support the notion of providing healthcare coverage for millions of previously uninsured constituents? Our citizens could have used a little leadership from Democratic candidates during that cycle. Our president would have benefitted from the leadership of those Democratic candidates because fear begets disrespect and that disrespect spilled throughout the party and weakened Obama as its leader. Maybe if we had all spoken out and pushed back against the Republican political propaganda machine, we would not have allowed the bell-curve to slide so far right.

The nation has had its share of politically lukewarm Democratic candidates-- structured by the national party for perceived winnability not leadership. Even if they had a tagline of-- “Fighting for you”-- no one believed it.  How could they if they didn’t fight for the ACA or weren’t willing to admit America has a gun violence problem?

...When Democratic leaders believe that beginning impeachment proceedings is about polls or election results, they, too, are giving in to fear: they are afraid that following the Constitutional checks and balances and leading will cost them their job, so they mitigate and delay. Unfortunately, their job is to lead by upholding the Constitution, not to get re-elected.

Impeachment is not about undoing the last election or impacting the next. It certainly is not about the polls as the Founding Framers made perfectly clear in Federalist Paper, No. 66. It is about stopping a president who would abuse and misuse the power of the presidency so that not another day passes-- not another circumstance presents itself-- where a president, unfit for duty because of the commission of High Crimes or Misdemeanors (defined as misdeeds) can inflict his/her poor judgment on the office, the country, or the people. Oh, if only impeachment proceedings had been instituted sooner, the damage that might have been averted.

Instead, Democrats are afraid of what the Republicans will say about it-- what the bullies will do to us on the way home. So, we cut through the alley to avoid the fight and controversy. We detour our duty of leadership and good government. Commencing impeachment proceedings is about employing the constitutional duty that our elected leaders were sworn to do-- not about mitigating to the finish line and hoping no one notices that we wouldn’t use the tools entrusted to us to keep the American system on the rails. All Democrats, and many Independents and Republicans, understand that Donald Trump has committed High Crimes or Misdemeanors, so if this conduct doesn’t warrant the commencement of impeachment proceedings, then what would? We must seriously consider the example of tolerance for harmful conduct at the highest levels of our government we are creating.

The key to winning is that you don’t aim to win, you aim to lead. If you lead, the winning takes care of itself-- or at least you move the needle so profoundly you set up the next winner, as did Stacey Abrams in Georgia with her heroic non-loss in Georgia. She was who she was and voters responded to that.

That’s not fear, that’s winning.

Retired Admiral Mike Franken, one of the candidates running for the U.S. Senate seat occupied by Trump enabler Joni Ernst (R-IA) told us today that "In my previous line of work, if you make a mistake in judgment, the shortcoming is documented. I'm joining my friend Senator Joe Manchin in calling for a vote on censuring Donald Trump for conduct unbefitting the office of the President of the United States. Let's see if Joni Ernst remembers telling Jake Tapper about the president's mistake in using his office's influence to investigate Joe Biden in Ukraine and whether she remembers her military training to document and censure poor or misguided performance. This is an opportunity to separate those who understand the importance of leadership in crisis from those who fall for political expediency."

OK, so now let's close out the night and, in some respects, the week, with some commentary from the inimitable Samantha Bee. She was really rockin' this week:

Did Pelosi And The Rest Of The Fear-Based Democrats Screw Up Impeachment?

Quote of the week comes from Georgia U.S. Senate candidate Teresa Tomlinson, a progressive, a super-smart attorney and, until earlier in the year, the very successful mayor of Columbus:

It’s fear that cripples the Democratic Party. Fear of our policies, fear of who we are, and fear of the Republicans. Yes, fear is what has politically cost us in the last many election cycles.

One cannot lead if one is afraid. The thing about leadership is that people want their leaders to be brave. They care less about what you think on the issues than whether you have the moxie to fight for them and the strength of conviction to tell them what you really think.

Instead of doing her constitutionally-mandated duty of beginning the process of removing the criminal in the White House, Pelosi-- a victim of her own hype about how sharp and strategic she is-- has been playing political calculus and, in the process, may have blown the chances to impeach Trump.

Early yesterday morning, the Sun Sentinel broke the news that garden variety congressional Democrat Ted Deutch, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, has finally gotten around to backing impeachment. It was in an OpEd penned by Deutch himself, No More Debate. Impeachment Inquiry Is Underway. But have they waited too long to win the battle of TV ratings-- and public support? "Although Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony may not have been a summer blockbuster," wrote Deutch, "it confirmed the damning conclusions of his report. The investigation revealed substantial evidence that President Trump obstructed justice. And that the Special Counsel did not exonerate him."

Why it wasn't a summer blockbuster isn't addressed by Deutch. Everyone inside the Beltway was tuned in-- but not the national audience that would have been had it been "important enough" to be part of impeachment. If the Democrats didn't think it was impeachment material, why should people take time out of their busy days to watch this "inside baseball" stuff? That's where Pelosi (and Nadler) miscalculated. Did they blow the chance to turn public opinion decisively in favor of impeachment, the way the Nixon television impeachment hearings did?

The most recent Reuters poll (by Ipsos) has some important numbers to consider. Among registered voters, 59% say the country is heading in then long direction. (55% of independents agree.)

Among registered voters, Trump's job approval is 40%, with disapproval at 59%. (Among independents, it's 42% approve and 51% disapprove.)

People polled say the Mueller testimony didn't sway them much in terms of impeachment. "Among those [71%] who read, saw or heard about Mueller's testimony, 47% said it made no difference in their views about impeaching the president. The public hearings had opposing impacts based on partisanship: among Democrats, 48% said they are more likely to support the process of impeachment that could ultimately lead to Trump’s removal from office, 8% said they are less likely to support impeachment and 44% said they feel the same as they did prior to Mueller’s testimony. Whereas for Republicans, only 3% said they were more likely to support impeachment, 42% said they were less likely, and 54% were unchanged. Independents were split, with 26% saying they are more likely to support impeachment and 29% saying less likely. 45% of Independents said they feel the same as they did prior to Mueller’s testimony."

Even after the hearings in which Mueller explicitly said he did NOT exonerate Trump, 35% of voters believed the had exonerated Trump and just 41% were clear-minded enough to understand that he hadn't. And a new Quinnipiac poll shows that although 51% believe Trump is a racist and that 71% are "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" that a foreign government may try to interfere in the 2020 elections, and that a 52% to 40% majority said that Trump did attempt to "derail or obstruct" the investigation into the 2016 election, 60% of registered voters said Congress should not begin impeachment proceedings against him. (61% of Democrats do support impeachment.) Now... back to Deutch: "Trump," he wrote, "claimed victory. He seems to think that Mueller’s performance wasn’t enough to trigger an impeachment inquiry. Sorry, Mr. President, the question is no longer whether the House should vote to proceed with a formal impeachment inquiry. The inquiry has already begun." But did Pelosi and her fear-driven caucus botch the process with their incremental approach to even this?

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole authority of impeachment. Officially launching an impeachment inquiry has never been a prerequisite to using that authority. The Judiciary Committee may refer articles of impeachment to the whole House for a vote at any time.

In the past, a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to consider impeachment was needed to grant the committee additional subpoena authority and financial resources. That was the official start of an impeachment inquiry.

But times have changed. In 2015, Republican leaders gave committee chairs broad subpoena powers-- powers that Chairman Nadler retains today.

No additional step is required. No magic words need to be uttered on the House floor. No vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry is necessary.

The Judiciary Committee officially started its investigation into the abuse of power by President Trump on March 4, 2019. The stated purpose was to consider all constitutional remedies for presidential misconduct, including impeachment. In every meaningful way, our investigation is an impeachment inquiry. The Judiciary Committee already has the power to refer articles of impeachment to the whole House.

The Trump Administration has taken unprecedented and unconstitutional actions to ignore congressional subpoenas and pressure witnesses not to appear. President Trump has turned the White House into a black box. The Justice Department fabricated a theory of blanket immunity and distorted claims of executive privilege. The Administration wants to silence the witnesses to the President’s obstruction.

But the American people deserve to hear from former White House Counsel Don McGahn, under oath, about when the President ordered him to fire Mueller. And from Corey Lewandowski about when he was asked to narrow the scope of the investigation to protect the President. And from former Attorney General Jeff Sessions about President Trump’s pressure campaign to take back control of the investigation.

If the suggestion that we are already in the midst of an impeachment inquiry sounds farfetched, look to last week’s court filings by the House counsel. To break the administration’s stonewalling, the House lawyers explained that the Constitution gives the House “a constitutional power of the utmost gravity-- recommendation of articles of impeachment.” Since Department of Justice policies won’t allow the prosecution of a sitting President, only the House of Representatives can ensure that the President is not above the law.

As we told the court, we already have the power. We don’t need a vote. We need President Trump to stop obstructing.

The committee has said repeatedly that impeachment is on the table. Legal experts, and now Robert Mueller himself, confirmed that the Special Counsel’s investigation was never capable of holding a sitting president accountable. Justice Department regulations ensured that was the case.

The remedies for presidential misconduct, including impeachment, are in Congress’s hands. Now that we have Special Counsel Mueller’s report and testimony, it is time for the witnesses of the President’s wrongdoing to appear before the committee as part of our ongoing investigation.

As Chairman Nadler noted in his opening statement last week, “We will follow the facts where they lead. We will consider all appropriate remedies. We will make our recommendation to the House when our work concludes.”

We don’t need to launch an impeachment inquiry. It has been under way since March.

Yesterday, Politico's whip list showed that over half the Democrats in the House (118 out of 235) now favor opening formal impeachment proceedings against Trump. The latest members to announce their support, besides Deutch, are Eliot Engel (New Dem-NY), Mike Levin (D-CA), Jennifer Wexton (New Dem-VA), Jason Crow (New Dem-CO) and Katherine Clark (D-MA), a member of Pelosi's leadership team.

Politico: "The lawmakers quietly working to organize support for Trump’s impeachment say there are two important figures to watch in the next few weeks. Assistant speaker Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), who is running for an open Senate seat against a primary opponent who has embraced impeachment proceedings, and Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a civil rights icon who has questioned the legitimacy of Trump’s election but so far deferred to Pelosi on impeachment. Though there’s no indication he’s changing his tune, Luján’s support for impeachment proceedings could help unlock the backing of a slew of freshman Democrats who Luján helped elect in 2016, when he ran Democrats’ campaign arm, pro-impeachment lawmakers say. And Lewis’ support would carry significant sway with members of the Congressional Black Caucus who have remained on the fence so far. Lewis has repeatedly been asked for his opinion on impeachment proceedings but has repeatedly indicated that he’s deferring to Pelosi."

That primary opponent Politico referred to as the person Luján is running against and who has embraced beginning impeachment proceedings is New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, a strong and dedicated progressive. She had forced the generally conservative Luján to flip flop on issue after issue. Because of her he now claims to support Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal, though he barely understands what either is. Yesterday, Oliver gave us a statement on Luján's hemming and hawing about impeachment. "For the good of our democracy," she wrote, "I am asking Congressman Lujan to use his leadership position and join my call for impeachment so that we can hold this president accountable and prevent any further abuses of power by the president. We must take action now to protect our democratic process by impeaching President Donald Trump. What’s more, we can hold this president accountable and still pass important legislation like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All."

Please consider contributing to Maggie's campaign for the New Mexico Senate seat by clicking on the Blue America 2020 Senate thermometer just above on the right. Not only will she make a better senator than Ben Ray Luján ever would, she'll actually make a great senator, one like Jeff Merkley, Mazie Hirono, Tammy Baldwin, Brian Schatz and, most of all, Tom Udall, the New Mexico progressive who is retiring now. It would be tragic to replace a progressive like Udall with a fear-based conservative like Luján.

The Fear-Based Politics Of Conservative Democrats Who Sold Themselves To The Voters As Fearless Military Heroes

Look at this photo. Does the word "progressive' come to mind?

It isn't just Cisneros, though, I'm using him as the example, other Dems who ran as brave vets and who have turned into amorphous mounds of quivering jello in the face of Trumpists in their districts include Chrissy Houlahan (PA), Jared Golden (ME), Jason Crow (CO), Max Rose (NY), Mikie Sherrill (NJ), and Elaine Luria (VA).

Judging by his sleazy campaign e-mails, everyone who knew that shady New Dem Gil Cisneros was lying last year when he claimed to be for Medicare-For-All, was correct. Now he's for something he calls "universal health care for all," basically nothing-- just a DCCC buzzphrase dodgy candidates can use to say they back private insurance with subsidies and rate hikes... like Status Quo Joe and Kamala. During the primary-- hoping for support from progressives-- Cisneros used to even pretend he was for Bernie, an absurdity.

Cisneros definitely raised his hand for Medicare for All at the NextGen forum during the primary and had his people out there saying he was for it. All during the primary, this so-called "ex"-conservative Republican always worked to blur the lines between himself and the real Democrats and more progressive candidates running in CA-39-- especially Andy Thorburn and Sam Jammal. He even told the Orange County Register he was for Medicare for All: "Janowicz, Cisneros, Jammal and Thorburn back that approach, although all note that it will take time to make such a transition."

As the general election campaign was wrapping up, he didn't seem as enthusiastic about it. The Washington Free Beacon certainly noticed. "Gil Cisneros, a Democrat running for Congress in the traditionally conservative enclave of California’s Orange County," wrote Susan Crabtree at the time, "is backing off his support for single-payer style healthcare reforms in the general election after supporting them during the primary race... During an appearance Tuesday with a local radio show hosted by Larry Mantle, Cisneros downplayed his prior support for a single-payer health care system and Medicare for all."

When he spoke with Think Progress he may have thought their readership was liberal so he didn't fully back away. "For right now," he said, "for me being practical, it’s about protecting what we have. Protecting the Affordable Care Act… Not allowing them to take away [protections for] pre-existing conditions... I think as soon as we get there, we protect the Affordable Care Act, you know, put the individual mandate back in, don’t allow them to take away [protections for] pre-existing conditions, and then we can keep progressing and working towards making sure everybody has Medicare for All."

At this point, Cisneros has been on the wrong side of almost every intra-party battle. He's clearly part of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, something that was always predictable. ProgressivePunch rates him a solid "F" so far and, let's face it, he's just nothing but a wasted seat in Congress. With the exception of himself and another arch conservative, Lou Correa, the whole Orange County delegation is supporting impeachment. Even Harley Rouda, another "ex"-Republican masquerading as a Democrat, has come around to now backing impeachment for Trump. It is highly doubtful there is a swing voter in Gil's district-- which went heavy for Hillary-- who would vote for a Republican for Congress just because Cisneros were to support impeachment. More likely that voter swings back over taxes or being unimpressed with him, if they would even consider swinging back while Trump is in office. 

Cisneros' problem is that the NRCC is after him in a big way and instead of standing strong for what he campaigned on and what won him his seat, he seems to be doing absolutely everything he can to turn off the Democratic base with his lame, fear-based politics. Georgia Senate candidate Teresa Tomlinson sounds like she was describing Cisneros when she explained a common problem among Democrats today: "It’s fear that cripples the Democratic Party. Fear of our policies, fear of who we are, and fear of the Republicans. Yes, fear is what has politically cost us in the last many election cycles. One cannot lead if one is afraid. The thing about leadership is that people want their leaders to be brave. They care less about what you think on the issues than whether you have the moxie to fight for them and the strength of conviction to tell them what you really think."

And like I said up top, this isn't just about Cisneros. Brave right-of-center veterans who are using Republican talking points today-- Chrissy Houlahan, Jared Golden, Jason Crow, Max Rose, Mikie Sherrill, and Elaine Luria-- should all think about this before it's too late. No one likes the smell of fear. And speaking of the stink of fear...

Ringing sleighbells and roasting chestnuts tell us it's that time of year: Be afraid for the holidays

by Ken

It's Friday, and I realize many of you were probably in such a hurry to get wherever you were going for the weekend -- and possibly beyond, with those two skeletal work weeks coming up surrounding the holidays -- that you missed this news. So as a public service, DWT wants to be sure you've heard the latest from your State Dept., courtesy of the Washington Post "In the Loop" team:

State Department warns travelers about worldwide terror threat

By Colby Itkowitz | December 19 at 5:30 PM

It’s the Friday before Christmas, but the State Department is not spreading holiday cheer.

The agency sent a downright dreary travel advisory warning Americans that the threat of terrorism is everywhere.

In light of the “lone wolf attack” at a cafe in Sydney, Australia this week, State said Americans need to be “extra cautious.”

“An analysis of past attacks and threat reporting strongly suggests a focus by terrorists not only on the targeting of U.S. government facilities but also on hotels, shopping areas, places of worship and schools, among other targets during or coinciding with this holiday period,” State warns. “U.S. citizens abroad should be mindful that terrorists groups and those inspired by them can pose unpredictable threats in public venues.”

So be alert for “signs of danger,” State says.

Well, happy holidays.

SPEAKING OF THE HORROR IN SYDNEY, WE
HEAR NOW FROM "MR. CRAZY," aka "DR. EVIL"


The caption from the website "Totally Looks Alike" reads: "Charles Krauthammer / Leprechaun (movie monster)." But I think that that's backwards, that the really hideous and terrifying image on the right is the real Chucky "The Hammer." (Anyone know for sure?)

As if the events themselves weren't horrible enough, we have to listen now to media bloviators digest them for us. And I can't think of many things creepier than the Washington Post's own "Mr. Crazy," aka "Dr. Evil," Chucky "The Hammer" Krauthammer, sounding off on "How to fight the lone wolf." I don't know about you, but I've always figured that if Chucky hadn't figured out how to make such a posh career out of spreading The Crazy, he'd be a prime candidate to turn up in a tower or a school library armed to the teeth with automatic weapons.

No, I haven't read the piece. Isn't it enough that I've provided you with a link if you feel you must? I will tell you, though, that the basic premise is: "There are two kinds of lone wolves -- the crazy and the evil -- and the distinction is important." I suppose you could argue that if anybody knows about the crazy and the evil, it's "Mr. Crazy," aka "Dr. Evil." On the whole, though, I'd rather be having the State Dept. scaring the stuffing out of me.

#

For America's entertainment, the great Right-Wing Noise Machine is putting on its favorite show: FEAR-O-RAMA

With Tom Toles update (see below)


Living with the Great Right-Wing Noise Machine means we always get a show. Alas, the show they most enjoy giving us is an especially schlocky low-budget horror flick.

by Ken

If the Republicans pooled their lying carcasses to be carved up and sent to a lab for careful analysis -- and I mean the best lab, with the finest detecting equipment -- there is no chance that you would find anywhere in the rubble so much as a single honest cell. These are creatures so debased that they are now committed to going to their graves without ever publicly telling the truth about anything at all.

So now, naturally, they're bathing us in an orgy of fear. Of course fear is one of the things they always do best

There isn't anything in the universe that these scumbags could protect anyone from. Nothing. Of course while some of them are all bluster and bullshit, many of them are capable of being as violent or brutal -- or of having other people who will inflict violence and brutality -- as freely as you could please, and would probably be thrilled to experience the joy they apparently don't get from activities like stimulating reading and sex in doing so. But with all of that, I say again, there is nothing they could protect anyone from. They, are of course, are the life forms we are in most urgent need of protecting from.

But especially with an American public as brutally moronified at the Right has managed to make it over these last several decades, galactic-scaled fear sounds like a no-brainer, from people who have nothing else to offer anyway.

Here is Jeremy W. Peters' lead item from this morning's newyorktimes.com "First Draft on Politics" e-mail. (Sorry, I don't have an online link. What is claimed in the e-mail to be a link to this isn't. Which is too bad because I'm omitting the scads of links in it, which I would normally tell you can find onsite. Well, if you want to read more, I bet you know how to find it. [UPDATE: Okay, here's a link.])

G.O.P. Finds a Campaign Theme: ‘Be Very Afraid’

With four weeks to go, the election has taken a dark turn as conservatives use warnings about Islamic State militants, the Ebola virus and terrorist acts to send a message: The world is a scary place, and the Democrats can’t protect you.

Take a new Republican ad aimed at Representative Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona that warns of terrorists streaming across the Mexican border. “Evil forces around the world want to harm Americans every day,” it says. “Their entry into our country? Through Arizona’s backyard.”

Another one, against Senator Mark Udall in Colorado, plays a clip in which he says the Islamic State does not pose an imminent threat. “Really?” the announcer asks. “Can we take that chance?” An ad in another Arizona House race features the footage of the journalist James Foley right before his beheading.

The commercials play on Americans’ well-documented fears in a world grown more chaotic. A recent Associated Press survey found that 53 percent of Americans believed the risk of another terrorist attack inside the country was extremely or very high. In a new Pew poll, 41 percent said they did not have “too much confidence” or “no confidence at all” that the federal government could prevent a major Ebola outbreak in the United States.

National Republican leaders have heard those worries, too. Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana have criticized President Obama for leaving Americans vulnerable to an Ebola epidemic. The Daily Caller has christened him “President Ebola.”

In an interview with First Draft, Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said the constant stream of bad news at home and abroad allowed Republicans to raise questions about Democratic leadership.

“It’s the accumulation of ineptitude that’s hovering over Obama and, in turn, his lieutenants that are running for U.S. Senate,” Mr. Priebus said. “I think it’s a powerful message because No. 1, it’s true. And No. 2, it’s simple.”

This is, of course, just what I was talking about last night. Reince Priebus doesn't know anything about Obama's supposed "ineptitude." All he knows are the constellation of lies he and his chums yammer. In fact, I wonder whether he knows anything at all about Obama apart from the color of his skin. And Reince Priebus certainly doesn't know anything about what is or isn't true. (Confidential to Reince P: If it's in your head, the chances are overwhelming that it isn't true.)

But one thing you have to give him is that it is indeed simple. Even Reince P knows from simple.

And it will work. As a result of which the Americans who fall for it won't be a whit safer, except insofar as the decibel level of the fear-mongering subsides after these creeps have gotten from it what they wanted.

So sure, by all means be afraid. Of the right-wingers are in full fear-mongering yammer. They ought to scare you to death.


UPDATE -- WaPo's TOM TOLES IS ON THE CASE

[Click to enlarge]

#

Inequality And Terrorphobia-- Linchpins Of America's Conservative Consensus

terrorism?

You probably read earlier today that the 85 richest people own nearly half the global wealth, right? The role of conservative government everywhere in the world is to either maintain or increase the share of wealth in the hands of the wealthy. That is the only real reason conservative parties exist. Progressive parties aim to decrease the share of the wealth the elites control and lower economic inequality. Here in the U.S., the Beltway Republicans fit the classic conservative model. The Beltway Democrats, to be fair, are mostly not trying to help the rich grab a bigger share. Most of the party just wants to maintain the status quo inasmuch as it helps their Members stay on their career trajectories. Some Democrats-- progressives-- would like to reform the system, but they're a small, struggling minority. The corporate media makes sure they remain small and remain struggling.

The 85 richest people on Earth own 46% of its wealth-- the same amount as the bottom half of the population-- according to a new report that highlights growing income inequality as political and business leaders gather for the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

The findings undermine democracy and make it more difficult to fight poverty, said British humanitarian group Oxfam International, which released the report.

“It is staggering that in the 21st century, half of the world’s population own no more than a tiny elite whose numbers could all sit comfortably in a single train carriage, said Winnie Byanyima, the group's executive director.

"Widening inequality is creating a vicious circle where wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, leaving the rest of us to fight over crumbs from the top table," she said.

In a report last week, the World Economic Forum said widening income inequality was the risk most likely to cause serious damage in the next decade.

President Obama recently called the expanding gap between rich and poor a bigger threat to the U.S. economy than the budget deficit.

The United States has led a worldwide growth in wealth concentration, according to the Oxfam report, titled "Working for the Few."

The percentage of income held by the richest 1% in the U.S. has grown by nearly 150% since 1980. That small elite has received 95% of wealth created since 2009, after the financial crisis, while the bottom 90% of Americans have become poorer, Oxfam said.

And that brings us to philosophy professor Peter Ludlow's fantastic essay in yesterday's NY Times, Fifty States of Fear. Ludlow wrote a brilliant OpEd on the surveillance state. What does that have to do with economic inequality and conservatism? Ah, ha! Key question!

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell, writing as World War II was drawing to a close in Europe, observed that “neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear.” Russell’s point was that irrational fear can propel us into counterproductive activities, ranging from unjust wars and the inhumane treatment of others to more mundane cases like our failure to seize opportunities to improve our everyday lives.

…Even democracies founded in the principles of liberty and the common good often take the path of more authoritarian states. They don’t work to minimize fear, but use it to exert control over the populace and serve the government’s principle aim: consolidating power.

Philosophers have long noted the utility of fear to the state. Machiavelli notoriously argued that a good leader should induce fear in the populace in order to control the rabble.

…Since 9/11 leaders of both political parties in the United States have sought to consolidate power by leaning not just on the danger of a terrorist attack, but on the fact that the possible perpetrators are frightening individuals who are not like us. As President George W. Bush put it before a joint session of Congress in 2001: “They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” Last year President Obama brought the enemy closer to home, arguing in a speech at the National Defense University that “we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States”-- radicalized individuals who were “deranged or alienated individuals-- often U.S. citizens or legal residents.”

The Bush fear-peddling is usually considered the more extreme, but is it? The Obama formulation puts the “radicalized individuals” in our midst. They could be American citizens or legal residents. And the subtext is that if we want to catch them we need to start looking within. The other is among us. The pretext for the surveillance state is thus established.

…One way in which our fears can be manipulated by the government is to lead us to fear the lesser danger. Schneier provides a simple example of this: 9/11 caused people to irrationally fear air travel and led them to the much more dangerous route of traveling in automobiles.

Another such example of this misdirection of fear took place in the case of the Boston Marathon bombings on April 15, in which the Boston Police Department effectively imposed martial law and seized control of people’s homes and used them as command posts in their effort to apprehend the perpetrators. The bombings were terrible (three people died and more than 260 were injured), but just two days later another terrible thing happened: a giant explosion in a fertilizer plant in Texas killed at least 14 people and injured more than 160. For a moment we held our collective breath. Could it have been terrorists?

When we learned that it was probably an accident caused by the ignition of stored ammonium nitrate, a collective sigh of relief was heard, and then not another word about the event. But why? And what if the explosion in that factory was part of a larger problem of industrial safety? In fact, according to a report by the United States Congressional Research Service, thousands of industrial facilities across the country risk similar harm to nearby populations.

Meanwhile, 300,000 residents of West Virginia were without safe drinking water last week after 7,500 gallons of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol leaked into the Elk River from an industrial storage tank at a plant owned by a company called Freedom Industries. Few, if any, of the Sunday TV talk shows discussed the matter, but imagine the fear that would have been pedaled on those shows if terrorists had poisoned the water of those 300,000 Americans. Of course the danger is the same whether the cause is terrorism or corporate indifference and malfeasance.

Dangers are not limited to large scale events. In 2012, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 4,383 workers were killed on the job, and it has been at this level or higher since 9/11. In other words, we suffer a 9/11 every year in terms of workplace fatalities.

But the problem is not limited to workplace deaths. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. estimates another 50,000 die every year from occupational diseases. And none of this accounts for the thousands of workers who are permanently disabled each year.

In total, 54,000 Americans die every year due to work-related illnesses and accidents. This is the equivalent of 148 deaths each day; in terms of fatalities it is roughly a Boston Marathon bombing every half hour of every day.

But while we spend more than 7 billion dollars a year on the T.S.A.’s national security theater in which over 58,000 T.S.A. employees make sure we are not carrying too much toothpaste or shampoo onto airplanes, the budget for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is under $600,000 per year. It seems that our threat assessments are flawed.

We are conditioned to fear persons in caves in Pakistan but not the destruction of our water supply by frackers, massive industrial accidents, climate change or the work-related deaths of 54,000 American workers every year. Fear of outside threats has led us to ignore the more real dangers from within.

…Fear is a primal human state. From childhood on, we fear the monsters of our imaginations, lurking in dark closets, under beds, in deserted alleyways, but we also now fear monsters in the deserts of Yemen and the mountains of Pakistan. But perhaps it is possible to pause and subdue our fears by carefully observing reality-- just as we might advise for trying to calm and comfort a fear-stricken child. We might find that, in reality, the more immediate danger to our democratic society comes from those who lurk in the halls of power in Washington and other national capitols and manipulate our fears to their own ends.

What are these ends? They are typically the protection of moneyed interests. In 1990, the Secretary of State James Baker tried to make the case for the first Gulf War on economic grounds. “The economic lifeline of the industrial world,” he said, “runs from the gulf and we cannot permit a dictator such as this to sit astride that economic lifeline.”

That rationale, although honest, did not resonate with the American people — it hardly seemed to justify war. The George W. Bush administration abandoned the economic justification and turned to fear as a motivator. We were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. If we did not act against him, the national security adviser Condoleezza Rice argued, the next thing we would see might be a “mushroom cloud.”

This playbook of fear has not been limited to motivating military actions. Environmentalists, once ridiculed as “tree-huggers” are now often characterized as “environmental terrorists”-- as individuals we should fear and neutralize. The hacktivist Jeremy Hammond, who exposed the nefarious dealings of the private intelligence corporation Stratfor and its clients, was characterized as someone seeking to cause “mayhem” by Federal District Judge Loretta Preska when she sentenced him to 10 years in prison.

In each case, the images of mushroom clouds, environmental terrorists and agents of mayhem were used to justify actions that would otherwise seem excessive-- all in the service of protecting corporate interests.

Whatever their motivation, by using fear to induce the rollback of individual rights, politicians, judges and lawmakers are working against the hard-won democratic principles and ideals that we and other democracies have defended for almost 250 years. They are manipulating our fears to undo centuries of democratic reform. And it doesn’t matter if the empowered leader is called a king or a prime minister or a president; the end result is that fear has been used to place us back under the yoke of Hobbes’s sovereign and Machiavelli’s prince.

Admission: over the weekend, my friend David and I went for a hike. By the time we got to the start of the trail, there were hundreds of cars looking for parking spots-- hundreds. David asked if there was some other trail. I have good parking karma so I continued to hunt and boom! the best spot imaginable within a couple of yards from the beginning of the trail, opened up. I zoomed right to it. And test as I got there a woman jumped in front of my car and announced she was saving the spot for a friend. There was no friend in a car and I told her to get out of the way. She was willing to die for the spot and she was soon joined by her husband who agreed they were saving the spot for a friend who they had apparently called on the phone. I demanded they get out of the way. The refused to budge. Obviously it never crossed my mind to run them over, but I was now blocking traffic. I saw two dumb-looking cops standing around under a nearby tree avoiding the sun. I yelled that there were terrorists blocking my parking spot and the two cops swung into action and dragged them away, expelling that parking in the park were on a first-come-first serve basis and that there was no such thing as reserving parking spots. They were pissed... but the cops had uniforms.