I Know It Sounds Insane, But Brian Kemp Actually Wants To Kill Georgians-- And He's Getting Away With It

Georgia was one of the early, hard-hit states in the pandemic. But unlike other early states, Georgia is led by a right-wing ideologue, Brian Kemp, who learned nothing at all about public health and seems to care no a whit about the residents of his state. While the coronavirus is under control in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut and the other early states, Georgia's pandemic is bigger than ever.

Wednesday, Georgia reported the 4th biggest one-day new cases in the country, right below Texas, Florida and California-- and worse off than Arizona! Georgia had 3,871 new cases and a ghastly 12,040 cases per million Georgians-- worse than any country in Europe. On Thursday it was 3,441 new cases, bringing the state's total to 131,275, eighth worst in the country-- and a rapidly increasing 12,364 cases per million Georgians.

Yesterday the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that Trump ass-licker Brian Kemp, who, as Secretary of State, stole the gubernatorial election in 2018, banned "cities and counties from adopting rules requiring masks or other face coverings, a measure that could bolster the state’s case in a possible legal battle... The governor has called such a requirement 'a bridge too far' and his office has said local mandates are unenforceable... [T]he new set of rules he signed on Wednesday specified for the first time that cities and counties can’t require the use of masks or other face coverings."

COVID-Kemp with friend

That could improve the state’s standing in a courtroom fight against a string of cities that have defied Kemp’s emergency order by requiring masks. Savannah led that charge earlier this month, and since then other cities including Atlanta, Athens and Augusta have followed suit.

...Hours before Kemp took action, his Republican counterpart in Alabama, Gov. Kay Ivey, announced a statewide mask requirement that will take effect Thursday. Meanwhile, Walmart and Sam’s Club said they would require shoppers to begin wearing masks Monday.

Also Wednesday, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced on Twitter that New York will send 7,500 COVID-19 test kits, 30,000 pieces of personal protective equipment and 1,250 gallons of hand sanitizer to Atlanta by Friday. Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, who earlier this week sought the state’s help amid a mounting feud with Kemp, said she was grateful.

...The rate of new tests that are positive for the disease is soaring, an indication that experts say suggests the spread of the disease-- and not increased testing-- is the culprit. During the week of May 24, state public health officials reported the rate of positive tests was about 6% over the course of seven days. Last week, the positivity rate was more than 13%, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution analysis of state data shows.

Even though the new wave of COVID-19 patients tends to be younger and less sick, they are filling hospital beds at a rapid clip. Hospitalizations topped Georgia's prior peak in April after the Fourth of July weekend. Shares of open critical care beds in regions surrounding Athens, Dublin, Macon, Marietta, Savannah and Tifton have dipped into the single digits. Only one was left in Dublin, according to the most recent figures available.

Disease experts at Georgia Tech and elsewhere have warned that Georgia is running out of time to prevent surges of cases that have overwhelmed hospitals in Florida, Arizona and other states that eased restrictions. This month, more than 1,400 health care workers signed an open letter calling on Kemp to shut down bars and restaurants, ban indoor gatherings of more than 25 people, mandate masks, and free local governments to institute their own rules to halt the spread of the disease.

“It’s not too late to go back to the basics: mandatory masks, more restrictions on social distancing, freeing mayors to manage their local epidemics, and vastly expanding testing and contact tracing,” Dr. Melanie Thompson, principal investigator of the AIDS Research Consortium of Atlanta, said last week. “These are basic, but we haven’t come close to mastering them yet.”

Dr. Harry J. Heiman, a clinical associate professor at Georgia State University School of Public Health, said: “In the absence of aggressive action, it’s only going to get worse.”

Seems like the worst possible time to tell local governments that they can't mandate masks

Teresa Tomlinson, former mayor of Georgia's second largest city, sees right through Kemp and his cronies "Georgia Republicans," she told me yesterday, "give a lot of lip service to local governments being the 'labortories of democracy.' They don’t believe that-- never have. Republicans want ideological enforcement at the state level. Kemp’s lawsuit against Atlanta Mayor Keisha Bottoms’ mask mandate fully demonstrates their hypocrisy. Kemp’s insistence that an individual’s freedom to wear a mask, or not, is more important than another person’s right to survive is absurd. People will die as a result of this foolishness."

Wisely, Athens and Clarke County are ignoring Kemp, the same way the Bay Area counties ignored California Gov. Gavin Newsom when the pandemic began (and are all faring much better than the counties that went along with Newsom's cowardly go-slow approach).

Athens Mayor Kelly Girtz on Thursday said that the face-covering ordinance that took effect July 9, “remains on the books.”

County commissioners unanimously approved the ordinance on July 7, and the ordinance remains in effect until Aug. 4, unless extended.

“I have been in regular communication with mayors in several other Georgia cities with mask requirements, and we wish for our local requirements to remain in place. We strongly believe this is within our authority,” Girtz said.

“On the practical matter of mask requirements, it is impossible to simultaneously want a successful economy without allowing the tools-- such as masks-- that will create the vehicle for this success. Otherwise, we risk continued shutdowns and medical crisis. Governors in Alabama, Texas and North Carolina recognize this, as do health experts from throughout the globe,” the mayor said.

According to the Girtz, the police department and county Code Enforcement Division have been told to not issue summonses during the first week of the ordinance’s roll-out, and instead “simply seek compliance” and distribute masks to people who don’t have them.

Kemp’s order that bans local governments from requiring mask wearing came as Georgia continued to see a high level of new COVID-19 infections.

Kemp was among the first governors to ease earlier restrictions, and while infections declined for weeks afterwards, they began to rise in June.

...In Athens-Clarke County there have been 1,045 confirmed cases, 74 hospitalizations and 15 deaths, according to the DPH.

According to Harvard Global Health Institute’s Covid Risk level, Athens-Clarke County is at 25.4 new daily cases per 100,000 residents, putting the county at “Covid Risk Level: RED TIPPING POINT Stay-at-home orders necessary.”

The state reports that 84 percent of available hospital critical beds are in use.

...The Athens face-covering ordinance is an attempt to slow the spread of the disease, which has shown no signs of abating. The measure requires that people cover their noses and mouths while in public.

A first and second violation or the ordinance is punishable by a $25 fine, and the third and subsequent violations are punishable by a $100 fine.

My friend Bertis Downs lives in Athens. Yesterday, he wrote that "With the reality of community spread so bad that Republican leaders in West Virginia and Alabama, not to mention Walmart and Kroger, have required masks, the one thing public health professionals say we can all do to help beat the damned virus. But not in Georgia-- nope, our governor has decided to pick that fight after all. He says local mask ordinances in 15 Georgia cities are now void. That's what he says. Maybe at some point a court will be asked to decide. If so, I wonder if Kemp will do better in his deposition that he's done before-- it has to do with working memory, or something: AJC: "By the time his deposition concluded, Kemp had answered 'I don’t recall,' 'I don’t remember,' 'I don’t know,' or some variation at least 91 times. 'To the best of my knowledge,' Kemp replied to one question, 'I don’t recall that.'" From the AP story: "The Republican governor has instead been trying to encourage voluntary mask wearing, including telling fans that reduced infections from mask-wearing would make college football season possible."

Maybe Brian Kemp needs to be impeached and removed from office before he kills even more Georgians? Oh, that's right... most members of the state legislature are as crazy, bigoted and ignorant as Kemp is.

November's Outlook For Democrats Running For Congress Is Excellent

Last year, it was reasonable to look at the Senate election table for 2020 and predict that the Democrats would have a hard time flipping that chamber. It looked like they were most likely to lose one-- Jones in Alabama-- and possibly gain three-- Colorado (Gardner), Arizona (McSally) and Maine (Collins). That would leave them with the Turtle running the Senate again-- with a fragile 51-49 majority. Thanks in great part to Trump's incompetent, dysfunctional and failed handling of the pandemic (both health wise and the economic fallout), the Democrats mood towards the GOP has soured so badly that several other Republicans look like they will have a hard time being reelected, namely Kelly Loeffler (Georgia), David Perdue (Georgia), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Thom Tillis (North Carolina), Dan Sullivan (Alaska) and Steve Daines (Montana)... not to mention the open seat in Kansas and 3 fascinating long shots: Texas (John Cornyn), Kentucky (Turtle himself!) and South Carolina (Lindsey Graham).





The Senate is absolutely in play and I'd say the Democrats currently have the upper hand. Unless the Democrats nominate Jon Ossoff-- in which case they will lose the Perdue contest-- they can win the two Georgia seats, which will mean that for the first time since 1993, Georgians will have elected Democrats for both their Senate seats-- back then, Sam Nunn and, briefly, Wyche Fowler. The Democrat that can beat Perdue is clearly former Columbus mayor Teresa Tomlinson, which would make her the first woman elected to a Georgia Senate seat. (Georgia has never had a woman governor.) The most recent poll in Arizona shows Democrat, Mark Kelly leading appointed Republican incumbent Martha McSally by an astounding 13 points.

The RealClearPolitics polling average shows the DSCC's extremely weak North Carolina candidate, Cal Cunningham, slightly ahead of GOP incumbent Thom Tillis. The last public poll of the Maine Senate race-- by PPP-- shows Susan Collins losing to the DSCC candidate 47-43%, with Collins' approval rating at a miserable 33%. The last public poll for Colorado, by Emerson, shows the DSCC candidate beating Cory Gardner (R) 53-40%.

But the House has always looked good for the Democrats this cycle. Somehow the media was swayed by the NRCC to frame the race as not as "How many more seats will the GOP lose in 2020," but as "Can the GOP regain the majority," an absurd proposition. The foolish prognosticators all went along with that-- and so did the lazy mass media. But it was always the wrong question because the Trump GOP has been on the skids and looking more likely to lose a net of 15 seats than gain a net of 1 seat!

Sure, there are three accidental 2018-won seats the GOP could possibly take back-- SC-01 (Joe Cunningham), NY-22 (Anthony Brindisi), OK-05 (Kendra Horn)-- but they are all useless members who vote with the Republicans anyway and the party is better off without the 3 of them. One senior Democrat on Pelosi's leadership team confided in me that, for example, Brindisi, a Blue Dog chairman, whines about every single thing the Democrats try to do, whimpering that it will cause him to lose his seat. He told me that every Democrat in the House other than his fellow Blue Dogs hopes Brindisi does lose his seat! On the brighter side of this coin, dozens of Republican seats are in genuine jeopardy-- even with miserable DCCC recruiting-- in another anti-red wave. Among Republican seats up for grabs:

• CA-01- LaMalfa
• CA-04- McClintock
• CA-22- Nunes
• CA-25- Garcia
• CA-42- Calvert
• CA-50- open
• FL-15- Spano
• FL-17- Buchanan
• FL-18- Mast
• GA-01- Carter
• GA-07- Woodall
• IA-04- King
• IL-12- Bost
• IL-13- Davis
• IN-05- Brooks
• MI-03- Amash
• MI-06- Upton
• MN-01- Hagedorn
• MN-08- Stauber
• MO-02- Wagner
• MT-AL- Gianforte
• NC-02- Holding
• NC-06- Walker
• NC-08- Hudson
• NC-09- Bishop
• NC-11- open
• NE-02- Bacon
• NJ-02- Van Drew
• NY-01- Zeldin
• NY-02- King
• NY-24- Katko
• NY-27- open
• OH-01- Chabot
• OH-10- Turner
• OH-12- Balderson
• OH-14- Joyce
• PA-01- Fitzpatrick
• PA-10- Perry
• PA-16- Kelly
• TX-02- Crenshaw
• TX-06- Wright
• TX-10- McCaul
• TX-21- Roy
• TX-22- Olson
• TX-23- Hurd
• TX-24- Marchant
• TX-25- Williams
• TX-31- Carter
• VA-05- Riggleman
• WA-03- Herrera Beutler
• WA-05- McMorris Rodgers

Are the Democrats going to take over 50 seats? No. But these are all potential battlegrounds, even with putrid DCCC recruits, primarily because of Trump. There are seats in North Carolina and Texas that look like a sure thing and there are seats in New York and Nebraska that look like a better than even bet. None of that surprises me. But what does is this Nathan Gonzales headline at Roll Call, Ratings update: Democrats more likely to boost majority than lose it. Welcome aboard! Better late than never-- and most of his colleagues aren't there yet. In fact, he isn't really there himself and still offers a wildly Republican-friendly outlook. At least his tepid analysis seems to have grasped that absurd GOP "targets" like Josh Harder(CA), Katie Porter (CA) and Antonio Delgado (NY) may be wishful thinking but are not legitimate battlegrounds for the Republicans. "[T]he House battlefield," he wrote, "consists of 31 districts currently represented by Democrats, 28 districts currently held by Republicans, and the open seat being vacated by Michigan Libertarian Justin Amash, who is not seeking reelection. Republicans need to gain 17 seats in November to retake the House... With that battlefield and President Donald Trump struggling to reach his 2016 marks in key districts, the most likely outcome for the House is close to the status quo. The most likely range is a Republican gain of five seats to a Democratic gain of five seats, or something in between." See? Still silly and months behind the reality.

The battlefield for control of the House is shrinking and divided, and that’s bad news for Republicans. Indeed, Democrats at this point in the cycle look more likely to gain seats than to lose their majority.

In the May 2018 ratings, the fight for the House was being played out on GOP territory. Republicans were defending 68 vulnerable seats compared with just 10 for Democrats, who gained a net of 40 seats later that November.

In May 2016, the House battlefield was more narrow, with Democrats defending seven vulnerable seats compared with 25 vulnerable Republican ones. Democrats netted a modest six seats that fall.

...In 2008, when Democrats gained 20 House seats, which is close to the number Republicans need this year, the House battlefield was already tilting in their favor in May. Democrats were defending 37 vulnerable districts compared with 25 held by Republicans. House Democrats today don’t mind the comparison to 2008 because they’re trying to replicate the 2006-2008 combination with gains in 2018 and 2020.

Republicans’ bigger challenge is that Trump is underperforming his own results from 2016. The most common statistic cited in the GOP’s path to the majority is the 30 House Democrats who represent seats Trump carried four years ago.

A handful of those races, however, are not even rated as competitive because of the lack of a credible GOP challenger, and there’s no guarantee Trump will carry those districts again. If Trump falters by just 3 points and Biden runs ahead of Hillary Clinton by 3 points, the president would carry just 13 of the 30 districts again. Even if Republicans win all of those 13 (which they won’t), that would still leave them short of a majority.

Even within the batch of the most vulnerable Democrats, Republicans are struggling to put those races away. Banking easy races early frees up resources to win the second tier of takeover targets, which are necessary for a majority.

Vulnerable Democrats in better shape for reelection include Lauren Underwood (Illinois’ 14th, Tilt Democratic to Lean Democratic), Andy Kim (New Jersey’s 3rd, Tilt Democratic to Lean Democratic), Anthony Brindisi (New York’s 22nd, Toss-up to Tilt Democratic), and Ben McAdams (Utah’s 4th, Toss-up to Tilt Democratic).

Democratic chances also improved in Nevada’s 3rd District, represented by Democrat Susie Lee, where the race moved from Lean Democratic to Likely Democratic, and Texas’ 21st, where GOP Rep. Chip Roy is facing a well-financed fight from Democrat Wendy Davis, and the contest shifted from Likely Republican to Lean Republican. And the race for Montana’s at-large district was added to the battlefield from Solid Republican to Likely Republican with a strong early showing by Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock in the Senate race at the top of the ballot.

Marianne Williamson Takes On The Party Establishment

Yesterday, Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti invited Marianne to be a guest on Rising to discuss her 2020 congressional endorsements. She explained (above) her thinking about backing candidates who are challenging Democratic congressional leadership-- like Shahid Buttar (vs Nancy Pelosi), Mckayla Wilkes (vs Steny Hoyer), Jen Perelman (vs Debbie Wasserman Schultz), Lauren Ashcraft (vs Carolyn Maloney), Jamaal Bowman (vs Eliot Engel)... To have a national figure who can command attention on media the way Marianne does, is incredibly valuable to the progressive movement. In fact, Friday she's tape a show for next week with Anand Giridharadas at Vice.

The candidates she's backing span a wide range of progressives, some-- like Mike Siegel (TX-10), J.D. Scholten (IA-04), Nate McMurray (NY-27), Julie Oliver (TX-25) and Lisa Ring (GA-01)-- who came incredibly close in 2018 and are tee-ed up to win in November. Others are first time candidates who are part of the future of the progressive movement and, hopefully, the Democratic Party, win or lose-- like Eva Putzova (AZ-01), Keeda Haynes (TN-05), Shan Chowdhury (NY-05), Rebecca Parson (WA-06), Hector Oseguera (NJ-08), Robin Wilt (NY-25)... Marianne's ActBlue thermometer is on the right and finding a candidate or two you could support with a contribution could make a real difference in a campaign and in the tenor of Congress for the next two years. Is it going to be a corporate pig-sty again or a place where progressive ideas and values are going to play a role?

After Marianne was finished taping the show, she started some inspired tweeting. First this thread:

And then this one-- powerfully and directly to the point:

Then she focused her 2.7 million twitter followers on Jamaal Bowman brand new campaign video, released moments before. 2.7 million twitter followers is a big deal. Three of Biden's top VP contenders don't have that many combined: @SenKamalaHarris (1.2 million), @AmyKlobuchar (1 million), @RepValDemings (135,800). I sure hope a lot of those 2.7 million people have watched or will watch Jamaal's video:





Marianne hasn't endorsed many candidates for U.S. Senate. One, though is Teresa Tomlinson who is running for the Georgia seat occupied by odious Trump ass-kisser David Perdue. Before Teresa can beat Perdue, though, she has to beat Chuck Schumer. Schumer has stuck his nose into Georgia politics and thinks he's entitled to chose the state's Democrats nominee. He recruited a pointless centrist, Jon Ossoff who couldn't beat Perdue in a million years. And now Schumer is raising money for Ossoff from the Wall Street and corporate whores who he serves. Take a look at this little fundraising chart:

Teresa is getting her contributions from Georgians (68.7%). Ossoff is getting his contributions from out of state, much of it from Schumer's senator-purchasers (63.3%-- so just 36.7 from Georgians). This contest is June 9. Teresa: "Despite Jon Ossoff’s supposed fundraising prowess, we are smokin’ him in Georgia. Georgians are the voters and they will decide this race... From the beginning, this battle has been Ossoff’s 2017 national fundraising network vs. our 'For Georgians, by Georgians' campaign. Now, we know that his national network is responding tepidly to his candidacy and our in-state fundraising has significantly outpaced him. With our $1.6M to his $1M and with nearly two thousand more Georgia donors than Jon’s campaign-- we see that Georgians are demanding their say in this election."

The Nature Of Conservatism-- Profiting From Societal Adversity

McConnell is a master of one thing and one thing only-- obstruction

I'm not going to argue about conservative, greed-obsessed businessmen rushing headlong into markets to profit from societal disruption. It's not illegal and anyone who ever thought a conservative had an predisposition towards ethical or Christian fundamental values was just kidding themselves anyway. My beef, though, is with conservative greed-obsessed elected officials. What I expect from private citizens of a conservative bent is not what I expect from conservative public officials. Nor should you. In two separate polls, a majority of North Carolina voters say Senator Richard Burr, who said in 2016 that he wouldn't run again, should resign for selling $1.6 million in hotel and other stocks based on inside information he obtained as chair of the Senate Intel Committee. He was only one of nearly a dozen conservatives in Congress who were doing the same thing-- selling stocks before the deluge-- although one, right-wing congressman Rob Wittman (R-VA) ran out as soon as he had some inside info and bought thousands of dollars of stock in AbbVie, Inc, which makes antiviral drugs. (His greed and lack of ethics, though, did him no good; he lost money too.) Robert Reich yesterday: Senators Loeffler and Burr-- and any other senator if found to have benefited from insider information about the pandemic, including Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)-- must resign immediately."

Last night the Washington Post reported that "Trump’s private business has shut down six of its top seven revenue-producing clubs and hotels because of restrictions meant to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus, potentially depriving Trump’s company of millions of dollars in revenue. Those closures come as Trump is considering easing restrictions on movement sooner than federal public health experts recommend, in the name of reducing the virus’s economic damage." Trump had two reactions. First was to tell Mnuchin that a bailout for [his] hotels and golf courses had to be included in any stimulus package and second was that he's opening the economy again, no matter what it does to the efforts to flatten the curve and save lives.

And now Mitch McConnell is leading Senate Republicans to pass a stimulus package that serves their own partisan interests and the desires of the donor class while screwing over working families, the same way they did in 2008. Georgia Senate candidate TeresaTomlinson saw it the same way I did. Yesterday she sent her supporters a note that included this: "Now, amidst a global pandemic, Republican senators are committing insider trading while they try to score a $500 billion slush fund for a corporate bailout that would help their donors. The world’s challenges are too important to continue with failed Republican leadership. We have to defeat the Republicans this November to fix the Affordable Care Act, guarantee universal healthcare, and protect people-- not corporations-- from the coronavirus pandemic."

But wait! Won't Trump fix everything now that we're going from "It's a hoax" to resurrection Sunday in April?

Also Yesterday, Tom Neuburger pointed out the crossroads the country has come to: a collision between two competing imperatives-- "does the nation serve the pathological wants of the few who control it or the immediate and existential needs of the many who live in it?"

The few-- the bankers and profiteers; investors and CEOs of all kinds and stripes; their well-paid enablers in the media and professional classes-- think the coronavirus emergency will pass and "business" (our modern, rapacious way of doing it) will eventually return to normal.

Thus for them, the current crisis represents once-in-a-generation opportunity for theft on the grandest of scales, the plundering of public goods and control in the time of greatest emergency. They think this theft, like the many similar others that went before it, will occur with no consequence for them and only long-term consequences for others-- thefts like the 2000 election, which cost them nothing while adding to their power and credibility, but left a great many others broken or dead; or the theft of family fortunes and futures during the 2008 global meltdown, losses that even today only they have recovered from.

...[T]he massive loss of wealth by the working class after 2008-- wealth they have still not regained-- happened slowly, and in a nation filled with "back to normal" TV propaganda (you don't see the struggling depicted on spry network dramas and comedies) their constant pain has by now been normalized and accepted as just the way things are "for some people." (Those "some people," it must be noted, put Donald Trump in the White House.)

...On whose side will government throw its weight? On the side of the pathological few or the side of the suffering many?

The answer to that question will determine the future of the nation. Will we more resemble the country of FDR and his widely loved government for the people, or that of Louis XVI and his overthrown government of the people. A crossroads indeed. Will the national needs of the many be honored and met? Or will the pathological few light a flame that burns us all?

Now listen carefully to Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), a progressive, not a conservative. Ignore the imbecile talking head asking him questions, but listen to what he is prioritizing.





Crackpot Republicans in Ohio and Texas are breaking the law by using the pandemic as cover to prohibit all abortions. That's what conservatives have always done and will always do-- look for ways to push their toxic, anti-family agenda whenever they can take advantage of an opportunity, no matter how dire.

Today, Bernie, reacting to the decision by the Trump Regime's FDA to grant Gilead Sciences a seven-year monopoly for antiviral medication remdesivir for potential treatment of the coronavirus, said "It is truly outrageous that after taxpayers put tens of millions of dollars into developing remdesivir, Trump’s FDA is exploiting a law reserved for rare diseases to privatize a drug to treat a pandemic virus. The Trump Administration must rescind this corporate giveaway to Gilead and make any treatment and vaccine free for everybody. Now is not the time for profiteering in the pharmaceutical industry. Now is the time to bring our scientists together to develop and produce the best treatment for the coronavirus as quickly as possible. When Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine 65 years ago, he understood the tremendous value it would have for all of humanity, and he refused to patent it. Right now, we must put human life above corporate profit. We cannot give pharmaceutical corporations a monopoly on treatments that could save millions of people during this crisis."

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:

Moscow Mitch Completes A Cover-Up That Doesn't Really Cover Up Much At All

Though the House impeachment managers proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Trump was guilty on both counts he was charged, the Senate voted 52-48 to cover up those crimes, let alone the others he wasn't even charged with. Mitt Romney was the only Republican with the guts to vote his conscience and for the best interests of the country. The Washington Post noted that he said his decision to vote to convict Trumpy-the-Clown was "the hardest decision" he has ever faced. Listening to his speech the Senate floor, above, doesn't sound like it was really that hard of a decision. The decision was only hard for faithless politicians worried about Trump's penchant for revenge. I want to add that very real courage was demonstrated yesterday by Doug Jones, who is up for reelection in November... in Alabama. He has told friends that he had no choice but to follow his conscience without taking partisan politics into account. David Perdue (R-GA) did exactly the opposite, as former Columbus mayor Teresa Tomlinson explained right after the vote: "The evidence was clear-- overwhelming, in fact, as Lamar Alexander admitted. When David Perdue voted today to acquit the president he made an impermissible political decision in a constitutional matter."

Every progressive Democrat running for Senate should do a similar meme

So why did Romney vote to convict, while Moscow Mitch lead the rest of the traitorous Republicans to pretend Trump wasn't guilty or that his crimes weren't serious enough? "My faith," said Romney, "is at the heart of whom I am. I am profoundly religious," subtly contrasting himself with the irreligious and satanic Trump. It looks like he had to prevent himself from crying at that point. He reminded his colleagues that "the verdictis ours to render under our Constitution. The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we do our duty." Imagine Trump enablers up for reelection in November-- Cory Gardner, Joni Ernst, Susan Collins, Martha McSally, Thom Tillis, David Perdue, John Cornyn, Dan Sullivan for example-- squirming in their seats, figuratively if not literally. I asked Andrew Romanoff, the progressive Democrat taking on Cory Gardner-- and having to fight off the status quo instincts of Schumer at the same time-- and he told me that "6 years ago, Cory Gardner promised to be a 'new kind' of politicians. Today, he proved again: that line was as old-- and as hollow-- as they come. Gardner ignored his constitutional duty, blocked evidence and acquitted a President who boasted about breaking the law. It’s time for both to go." Susan Collins' progressive opponent, Betsy Sweet was just as critical of Collins: "Senator Collins 'disappointed' but voting to acquit. She said on national tv that she thought he had learned some lessons from this. But Trump, when asked, said he didn’t learn anything because he had done nothing wrong. The real question is, have we learned our lesson-- which is that Collins will always vote with McConnell when he wants her to. She will always put party above democracy. Something I will never do as Maine’s next Senator."

Romney made it clear it was anything but a "perfect call"-- for anyone but Trump and Putin-- and immediately after he was done speaking, the White House announced that reporters were no longer invited into the Oval Office for a scheduled 2:15 pm opportunity to hear Trump boasting. Reporters were already lined up on the South Lawn ready to go in when Trump demanded the whole thing be cancelled. Romney said Trump "is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust. What he did was not perfect; no, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one's oath of office that I can imagine."

Coverup by Nancy Ohanian

How many of the 60,933,504 votes that Romney got were from Republicans who don't give a damn about anything he said yesterday? Romney won 24 states and, with the possible exception of Arizona and Utah, I'd bet that at least 80% of Republicans in them are wishing Romney ill. Why does Trump give a damn? He had planned to say the impeachment was a partisan hoax with no Republican support. Couldn't do that. He also feels betrayed by Romney, who he endorsed when he ran for the Senate, not that Romney sought or needed his endorsement. And now the news was as much about Romney's courageous vote as about Trump's "exoneration."

Kentucky state Rep, Charles Booker, one of the Democrats competing to take on Moscow Mitch in November, said that he had been clear from the beginning of this impeachment trial, "that Donald Trump should be convicted and removed. In contrast, Mitch McConnell began this process by touting his partiality. All of the aspects of this trial that brought shame upon our country, including blocking witnesses and evidence, can all be traced back to one person: Mitch McConnell. He sold out Kentuckians on a false hope that it will help him stay in power. Whether you believe Donald Trump should be removed or acquitted, we can all agree that Mitch McConnell did a disservice to all Americans by making a mockery of our democracy for the whole world to watch."

Pelosi's official statement:

Today, the President and Senate Republicans have normalized lawlessness and rejected the system of checks and balances of our Constitution. Our Founders put safeguards in the Constitution to protect against a rogue president. They never imagined that they would at the same time have a rogue leader in the Senate who would cowardly abandon his duty to uphold the Constitution.

President Trump was impeached with the support of a majority of the American people-- a first in our nation’s history. And now he is the first President in history to face a bipartisan vote to convict him in the Senate. A full 75 percent of Americans and many members of the GOP Senate believe the President’s behavior is wrong. But the Senate chose instead to ignore the facts, the will of the American people and their duty to the Constitution.

The President will boast that he has been acquitted. There can be no acquittal without a trial, and there is no trial without witnesses, documents and evidence. By suppressing the evidence and rejecting the most basic elements of a fair judicial process, the Republican Senate made themselves willing accomplices to the President’s cover-up.

Even without additional witnesses and documents in the Senate trial, our House Managers laid out an overwhelming, compelling and incriminating case about President Trump’s scheme to corrupt the 2020 elections and proved his guilt. The President’s legal team could not and did not refute the facts of the case. Instead, they argued that the American people have no right to stop the President from using the power of his office to cheat in our elections. They argued that if the President thinks that his re-election is good for the country, he can use any means necessary to win, with no accountability or consequences.

In December, the House defended democracy by passing two articles of impeachment to hold the President accountable for abusing his office for his own personal, political gain at the expense of our national security and the integrity of our elections. The President has been impeached forever.

Sadly, because of the Republican Senate’s betrayal of the Constitution, the President remains an ongoing threat to American democracy, with his insistence that he is above the law and that he can corrupt the elections if he wants to.  The House will continue to protect and defend the checks and balances in the Constitution that safeguard our Republic, both in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion. Democrats will continue to defend our democracy For The People.

State of the Union-- Nancy Pelosi by Nancy Ohanian

How Many Senate Republicans Will Stand Up For America In The War Powers Debate?

Never dependable in a pinch

Even after 8 of the worst Democrats in the House-- each of whom absolutely deserves to be defeated for reelection, but is being bolstered by the DCCC-- sided with Trump in a failed attempt defeat the War Powers Resolution, The Hill reported Tuesday morning that there might be "as many as 10 Republican senators" who buck Trump on this crucial approach to constitutional jurisdiction over war and peace. These are the House Democrats who, along with almost every Republican in the House, betrayed the country and their oaths of office:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)

It would have been 9 Democrats, instead of 8, betraying the country, their constituents and the Constitution but DCCC-Blue Dog Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey is now officially a Republican and, of course, voted against the War Powers Resolution as a Republican and dedicated and enthusiastic Trump ass-licker.

The Hill's Alexander Bolton wrote that "The increasing number [10 Republican senators] is the latest sign of growing GOP frustration over the Trump administration’s justification for the drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) is circulating a bipartisan resolution that would direct Trump to remove U.S. forces from any hostilities against Iran within 30 days of its enactment."

Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) are already publicly somewhat on board-- though Paul has a tendency to run his mouth and roar until vote time and then meekly back Trump. Bolton claims that 8 more Republicans are considering Kaine's resolution and names Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Mitt Romney (R-UT), the 3 obvious ones, and adds Todd Young (R-IN). That leaves 4 unnamed. The Republicans at the greatest electoral risk this year, aside from Collins, are:

• Cory Gardner (R-CO)
• Martha McSally (R-AZ)
• Thom Tillis (R-NC)
• David Perdue (R-GA)
• Joni Ernst (R-IA)
• Dan Sullivan (R-AK)
• Kelly Loeffler (R-GA)

There's an outside shot that John Cornyn (R-TX), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and MoscowMitch (R-KY) could be vulnerable but the lockstep support for Trump from these three goofballs is completely baked into the cake already. When asked how many Republicans are open to his resolution, Kaine told The Hill "Probably about 10. There’s good discussion going on." Lee also mentioned 10 as the number of Republicans open to at least considering it.

Democrats can force a vote on the measure at any time, but Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) on Monday said a vote will happen later in the week.

Schumer wants to make sure his entire caucus is present, increasing the odds that a vote would be held sometime after Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential primary debate in Iowa.

It needs only a simple majority to pass.

If it passes the Senate, the House would also need to pass the resolution before it can be sent to the White House, where Trump would be expected to veto it.

Lee said fellow Republicans should view the Kaine-sponsored resolution as a “completely noncontroversial measure” that restates the Constitution’s declaration that Congress shall have sole power to declare war.

He said it merely spells out that “additional hostilities against Iran need to be authorized by Congress.”

“That is a perfectly unremarkable statement,” Lee added. “The fact that this would be objectionable to anyone in either political party is really saying something.”

Republican senators are suggesting changes to Kaine’s resolutions, which the Democratic senator says can be offered as amendments on the Senate floor.

“I want to make sure that anything I vote on makes clear that the president maintains his Article II prerogatives and also that it does not contain any political content,” Young told reporters Monday, referring to Trump’s constitutional power to respond to attacks or imminent threats.

Kaine has agreed to accept Republican amendments that remove specific reference to Trump or might be construed as forcing the withdrawal of U.S. troops from areas where Iranian proxies are present.

...Senators in both parties say a briefing by senior administration officials last week failed to provide a clear legal justification for the U.S. drone strike that killed Soleimani.

The murky legal arguments put forth by the administration come on top of an evolving story about whether U.S. personnel in the Middle East faced an imminent threat from Soleimani, as Trump claimed last week when he said Iran and its allies “were looking to blow up our embassy.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday also asserted “an imminent threat,” adding the intelligence included “attacks on U.S. embassies.” He declined to define what exactly he meant by imminent.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper over the weekend told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that he “didn’t see” a “specific piece of evidence” that Soleimani was masterminding an attack on as many as four U.S. embassies.

The president pulled back from his initial claim on Monday by arguing that “it doesn’t really matter” whether there was an imminent threat against U.S. personnel and that the strike against Soleimani was justified “because of his horrible past.”

Perdue isn't getting away with his robot-like devotion to Trump-over-country without a spirited retort from at least one of his Democratic opponents. Teresa Tomlinson, the progressive in the Georgia U.S. Senate primary, noted, with gumption, that "Support for the War Powers Act is constitutional not partisan. I urge Senator Perdue to change course and finally put his allegiance to our constitution over his personal allegiance to Donald Trump."

Al Gross is the Independent/Democrat running for the Alaska Senate seat currently held by Trump puppet, Dan Sullivan. This morning, Gross told me that "Dan Sullivan believes in giving the President full war authority-- that's irresponsible. A Senator must serve as a check on, not a rubber stamp for the President. Dan Sullivan shows no leadership because he always puts Republican Party priorities before Alaska's priorities. I'll be a very different kind of Senator."