Friday Talking Points -- Legitimate Political Discourse?

[ChrisWeigant]

President Joe Biden had a pretty good week, as political weeks go in Washington. First and foremost, the Omicron variant of the COVID-19 pandemic is fading fast -- the numbers are now down below half of the peak they hit roughly two weeks ago. That's good news for everybody, not just President Biden.

Then it was announced that the United States military had taken out the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi. Questions still remain about the mechanics of this daring raid in Syria, but nobody is questioning the fact that the targeted terrorist leader is now dead.

The monthly jobs report came out today and it was astonishingly good, showing not only that the economy added 467,000 jobs in January (even in the worst part of the Omicron spike) but also that the previous two months had been adjusted upwards by a whopping 700,000 more new jobs than had been reported at the time. This stunned analysts who had been fully prepared for the jobs report to show the economy had lost jobs in January. The recovery continues apace, and Joe Biden oversaw more than six million jobs created in his first year in office (closer to seven million, actually) -- a jaw-dropping and record-setting number.

And even Senator Lindsey Graham was not only saying nice things about one of Biden's possible Supreme Court nominees, he actually offered up some effusive praise for the woman: "She's highly qualified, she's of good character, and we'll see how she does if she's nominated. But I cannot say anything bad about Michelle Childs. She is an awesome person." Again, a pretty good week for Biden all around.

But unfortunately, even though we do try to resist highlighting such things in general, the disgraced former president was the one really making the most news this week. And not in a good way.

Donald Trump began the week with a rally in Texas. During his speech, he dangled pardons for those who participated in the January 6th violent insurrection attempt at the United States Capitol:

If I run [for president in 2024] and I win, we will treat those people from January sixth fairly -- we will treat them fairly. And if it requires pardons, then we will give them pardons because they are being treated so unfairly.

He also issued a veiled threat to those with the temerity to be investigating him:

If these radical, vicious, racist prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal, I hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protests we have ever had in Washington, D.C., in New York, in Atlanta and elsewhere, because our country and our elections are corrupt.

For the record, the three prosecutors investigating him in New York and Atlanta are all Black. Hard to figure how this translates to "racist" in Donald Trump's mind, but the less time anyone spends contemplating his so-called mental processes the better, we suppose. He also (in a burst of projection) called people prosecuting him "mentally sick" and told the crowd: "In reality, they're not after me, they're after you, and I just happen to be the person in the way." Not sure exactly how he figures that one, either.

That was just the start of the week, mind you. The Atlanta district attorney who is indeed investigating Trump immediately sought help from the F.B.I. to secure the county courthouse after such "alarming" rhetoric:

"Security concerns were escalated this weekend by the rhetoric of former President Trump at a public event in Conroe, Texas that was broadcast and covered by national media outlets and shared widely on social media," Willis said in her letter to J.C. Hacker, the special agent in charge of the Atlanta field office of the FBI. "His statements were undoubtedly watched by millions."

In the letter, Willis asked that Hacker immediately conduct a risk assessment of the Fulton County Courthouse and Government Center and provide "protective resources to include intelligence and federal agents."

"We must work together to keep the public safe and ensure that we do not have a tragedy in Atlanta similar to what happened at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021," Willis said.

She noted that several other buildings are located in proximity to the courthouse, including the Georgia Capitol, Atlanta City Hall and dormitories at Georgia State University.

Willis asked that resources be in place "well in advance" of May 2. That is the day a special purpose grand jury is set to convene to hear evidence in Willis's criminal probe involving Trump and his associates.

Trump then moved on to just coming right out and admitting what everyone knew all along, in a separate statement, because he's also in a snit over a bipartisan Senate group proposing to strengthen the presidential election process for the future, to avoid anyone like Trump ever trying to subvert the will of the people ever again:

If the Vice President (Mike Pence) had 'absolutely no right' to change the Presidential Election results in the Senate, despite fraud and many other irregularities, how come the Democrats and RINO Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election? Actually, what they are saying, is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn't exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!

You've just got to love those last three words, because they are the functional equivalent of stating: "I am guilty of trying to overturn the last election." Note that: "overturn."

The rest of the week saw more and more revelations as to what that effort had actually entailed, each of which was downright frightening. Trump sent his minions (or directly asked them himself) to try to convince the Pentagon, the Justice Department, and the Department of Homeland Security to just go out and seize voting machines from all the key states that he needed electoral votes from (but that he had lost). Luckily, none of the heads of these departments went along with the scheme.

Now, you can say that it wouldn't have mattered, since no matter how long and microscopically you examined those machines they still would have unequivocally said: "Biden won," but that obviously wasn't the point. The point was to flex Trump's executive powers in an unprecedented and possibly treasonous fashion, and sow enough distrust and chaos so that Mike Pence could have made a semi-plausible case for rejecting certain states' electoral votes -- which would have thrown the election into the House of Representatives, where (under the strange rules governing such an occurrence) Trump would have won. Remember: "overturn" the election.

To add to the chaos, a different story also showed that Trump and his minions were also considering getting some raw data from the National Security Agency to somehow prove that foreign countries had interfered in the election (which also didn't actually happen). Just in case seizing the voting machines didn't provide enough chaos.

Also, surprising exactly no one, it was revealed that Trump considered issuing a blanket pardon for anyone who participated in the violent insurrection attempt at the Capitol, in his final days as president.

These are pretty stunning revelations, of course. But not to Republicans, or at least not most of them. There were a few notable exceptions, to be fair. Representative Liz Cheney reacted to Trump's rally statements by issuing her own strongly-worded rebuttal:

Trump uses language he knows caused the Jan 6 violence; suggests he'd pardon the Jan 6 defendants, some of whom have been charged with seditious conspiracy; threatens prosecutors; and admits he was attempting to overturn the election. He'd do it all again if given the chance.

Mike Pence, just today, contradicted Trump's call for him to defy the Constitution, speaking to a gathering of the Federalist Society:

This week, our former president said I had the right to "overturn the election." President Trump is wrong. I had no right to overturn the election.

Lindsey Graham chimed in with his own strong words for how it would be "inappropriate" to pardon anyone for January 6th:

I don't want to send any signal that it was okay to defile our Capitol. I want to deter people who did that on Jan. 6.... I hope they go to jail and get the book thrown at them because they deserve it.

For their efforts, Graham was thrown under the bus (once again) by Trump (who called him a RINO and said he doesn't know what he's talking about) and Liz Cheney was just censured by the Republican National Committee. Pence just spoke hours ago, so we'll have to wait to see what will petulantly erupt from Trump's pie-hole in response.

The R.N.C. censure (it should be noted that Adam Kinzinger, the other House Republican on the January 6th committee, was also included in it) was pretty breathtaking in its language, condemning the two for participating in what it called a "Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse." Got that? "Legitimate political discourse." That's apparently what caused injuries to 140 federal police officers. Just your everyday legitimate political discourse, nothing to see here, folks. I guess an angry mob chanting "Kill Mike Pence!" is the new normal, according to the R.N.C.?

Mitt Romney, who is incidentally the uncle of the current chair of the R.N.C., reacted to this language in a tweet:

Shame falls on a party that would censure persons of conscience, who seek truth in the face of vitriol. Honor attaches to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for seeking truth even when doing so comes at great personal cost.

But the best commentary on this was written before the actual R.N.C. vote, when a reporter for the Washington Post got an advance copy of the text:

At the party's winter meeting in Salt Lake City, it will consider a resolution rebuking Cheney and Kinzinger for their participation on the House select committee. The document, obtained by The Washington Post's Josh Dawsey, essentially spends 500 words to say what could be summarized in five: "They were mean to Trump." (Well, six: "WHEREAS they were mean to Trump." )

That about sums it up. The Republican Party does not accept within its ranks anyone who does not fully pay fealty to their Dear Leader's Big Lie anymore.

More and more of the story of January 6th is going to come out in the upcoming weeks. The House committee now has the White House records it sought, even though many of them had to be taped back together after President Man-Baby ripped them up and threw them on the floor in a rage, but the facts will come out nonetheless. Each damning piece of it gets harder and harder for Trump's apologists to conveniently explain away. The party as a whole is now committed to following Trump down this rabbit hole in his mind, and woe be unto them who don't proclaim the beauty of the emperor's new clothes!

It's a sad state of affairs, but that's where we all find ourselves now. A violent attempt to overturn a presidential election's certification by Congress in the United States Capitol has now officially been branded nothing more than "legitimate political discourse." Lo, how the mighty have fallen.





Getting noticed when protesting in Washington D.C. is always a problem, so a group of mothers (many from West Virginia) decided to make their point by piling up teddy bears. They were in D.C. to try to lobby politicians to support restoring the Child Tax Credit, which came to a screeching halt when Senator Joe Manchin refused to even consider it and shot down the Build Back Better bill. Some of the mothers from his own home state met with Manchin staffers, to explain what a lifeline the monthly payments had been for them last year, but it didn't sound like they made a whole lot of progress. Still, both for their determination and their creative use of teddy bears, they are more than deserving of an Honorable Mention.

But this week we're going to give a non-political award -- call it the Most Impressive Business Owner Of The Week, we suppose. Here's the whole story:

Comic book store owner Ryan Higgins was a teenager when he read Maus, the Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel about the Holocaust.

The 1986 narrative and its sequel tells the harrowing story of the author's father, who survived the Auschwitz concentration camp. The books, featuring mice as Jewish prisoners and cats as Nazi oppressors, were soon among Higgins's favorites.

"Reading Maus opened my eyes," Higgins said. "I remember thinking, 'This is about more than superheroes fighting bad guys.' It was heartbreaking and emotional, and it brought a whole new window to something I had little knowledge about."

When Higgins bought the Comics Conspiracy shop in Sunnyvale, Calif., near San Jose, he decided to make sure that the shelves were always well-stocked with cartoonist Art Spiegelman's story detailing his father Vladek Spiegelman's experiences, and the resulting trauma. For 16 years, that's been the case.

When Higgins learned Jan. 26 that the McMinn County School Board in Athens, Tenn., had voted unanimously to ban the graphic novel in middle school classes because of the board's objection over profanity and nudity, he was stunned.

"It's just so bizarre -- the actual images of the Holocaust are the most graphic, nightmare-inducing images in the world," he added. "Why take Maus out of the curriculum when it makes this horror more teachable to a wider and younger audience?"

Higgins, 42, said he knew he had to do something.

Higgins said he had a hunch that sales of the graphic novel would surge, so he quickly ordered 100 copies of The Complete Maus to give away.

"I'll donate up to 100 copies of The Complete Maus to any family in the McMinn County in Tennessee," he wrote on Twitter. "Just DM me your address!"

He would also pay for the shipping.

. . .

"When thought-provoking comic books and graphic novels are banned, this hits my world," he said. "Sending out free copies of Maus is something I can do. If even one kid reads it and it changes their world, that's a wonderful thing."

. . .

Higgins said he'll send as many graphic novels as he can to students and parents in districts where they have been banned, but he hopes for a day when he won't feel he has to.

"This is all just mind-boggling and makes no sense," he said. "Maus should be mandatory for all schoolchildren to read -- not taken away."

We wholeheartedly agree. Maus is not "a comic," it is instead great literature. There was nudity in Schindler's List, but does anyone claim it should be banned for children?

So we heartily salute Comics Conspiracy owner Ryan Higgins for taking a stand against such idiocy. He's sent out over 60 copies so far, and we hope that every child in Athens, Tennessee who wants to learn real history will also ask for one. Well done, Ryan -- you are more than deserving of our newly-minted Most Impressive Business Owner Of The Week award.

[Congratulate Ryan Higgins on the official Comics Conspiracy web page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]





Here we go again. (sigh)

This week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week goes out to a troika from California: Governor Gavin Newsom, San Francisco Mayor London Breed, and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. They were all in a luxury box together, watching a playoff game between the 49ers and the Rams, when they decided taking a few selfies with Magic Johnson was the smart thing to do. Unfortunately for them:

None was wearing a mask, required in Los Angeles County for all indoor public settings and outdoor "mega events." Stadium policy also requires anyone not "actively eating or drinking" to wear face coverings.

They all should know better. Newsom in particular, since this isn't the first time he's been caught blatantly flouting pandemic safety rules because he somehow thought they didn't apply to people like him (see: French Laundry). Garcetti took the prize for a non-apology apology, insisting he didn't inhale or exhale when he posed for the picture: "When people ask for a photograph, I hold my breath. There is a zero percent chance of infection from that."

How many times do we have to say it? When you are a political leader, it is morally incumbent upon you to set a good example for your constituents. This means not ignoring inconvenient rules just because you don't feel like following them. You know what? Everyone else also feels the rules are inconvenient, too! And why should any of them follow the rules if the people who make such rules blatantly ignore them?

Sheesh. You'd think, after two whole years of the pandemic, that we wouldn't have to say this kind of thing any more. But obviously (and sadly) we still do. For shame!

[Contact San Francisco Mayor London Breed on his official contact page, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti on his official contact page, and Governor Gavin Newsom on his official contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]




Volume 649 (2/4/22)

Once again, the Talking Points are kind of all over the map. But then it was that kind of week, at least among Republicans. So let's get right to it, shall we?



Tell us what you really think, Ted!

Ted Cruz was, surprisingly, not in Cancun, Mexico this week, even though Texas got socked with another winter storm. Instead, he was showing his true colors for all to see.

"I see that Ted Cruz is leading the charge against Joe Biden nominating the first-ever Black woman to the Supreme Court, although he's not the only Republican making absurd claims out there. He's just the most odious, as usual. Here's what he had to say recently:"

The fact that [President Biden is] willing to make a promise at the outset, that it must be a Black woman, I got to say that's offensive. You know, Black women are, what, 6 percent of the U.S. population? He's saying to 94 percent of Americans, "I don't give a damn about you. You are ineligible."... If you're a White guy, tough luck. If you're a White woman, tough luck. You don't qualify.

"Yeah, because as we all know the Supreme Court has also never had 'a White guy' or even 'a White woman' on it, right? Please. If what the Republicans are claiming were actually true, then the Democratic Party would insist on a real quota. Let's see, there have been 115 justices on the Supreme Court throughout history. Multiply that by six percent and you'd get seven justices. Well, since there has never been even one, that would mean that the next seven justices named by Democrats should all be Black women. Think that idea might make Ted Cruz's head explode?"



Um... no, Ted, sorry.

The Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson had the best comeback to one particularly inane bit of Ted's rant, so we're just presenting it as written:

Cruz went on to argue that promising to nominate a Black woman was, somehow, "actually an insult to Black women." I'd like to see what data he's relying on to support that claim. I happen to know quite a few Black women -- my wife, my sister, lots of other family members, many friends, co-workers and acquaintances -- and not a single one has expressed to me the slightest sense of being insulted. I've heard reactions of joy and pride but not a scintilla of outrage.

Why not quote a neo-Nazi pedophile instead?

Again, showing their true colors to anyone with eyes to see.

"Republican House member Thomas Massie posted a quote he presented as being from Voltaire this week, but two seconds on Google would have shown him that the quote is actually from neo-Nazi Kevin Alfred Storm, from back in the 1990s. More recently, Storm was convicted on child pornography charges. Sounds exactly right as someone who today's Republican Party would look up to as an intellectual guiding light, don't you think?"



Throw it back in their faces!

Chuck Schumer came up with a good talking point this week -- so good it really needs to go viral among Democrats.

"The Republican Party is fast becoming the party of book-banning, at least in schools. State after state led by Republicans are falling over themselves in a rush to enact laws that prohibit any teacher or school librarian from saying or providing any material that might make a White child uncomfortable. And no, that's not an overstatement. Chuck Schumer recently denounced this from the Senate floor, saying: 'These modern-day efforts from the far right to ban hundreds of books from the top down are dangerous -- patently un-American. This right-wing cancel culture should be resoundingly condemned.' Chuck is right -- weren't Republicans the ones who just a short time ago were getting all upset over 'cancel culture'? Now it seems they've not only embraced it, they have taken it to the extreme of mandating such cancel culture into law. They should be ashamed of themselves."



Textbook example

Literally, an example from a textbook. Because it wasn't all that long ago that students were taught such false history. The Washington Post ran a recent article that was almost entirely made up of excerpts from "an actual 7th-grade textbook used in Virginia schools from the 1950s through the 1970s." The book is Virginia: History, Government, Geography, and the excerpts are pretty hair-raising. Here are a few representative examples, if anyone is interested in exactly what Republicans are trying to take students back to (when White children were protected from ever feeling "uncomfortable" about anything):

A feeling of strong affection existed between masters and slaves in a majority of Virginia homes.... It was to [the master's] own interest to keep his slaves contented and in good health. If he treated them well, he could win their loyalty and cooperation.... The intelligent master found it profitable to discover and develop the talents and abilities of each slave.... The more progressive planters tried to promote loyalty and love of work by gifts and awards.

Life among the Negroes of Virginia in slavery times was generally happy. The Negroes went about in a cheerful manner making a living for themselves and for those for whom they worked.... They were not worried by the furious arguments going on between Northerners and Southerners over what should be done with them.... The negroes remained loyal to their white mistresses even after President Lincoln promised in his Emancipation Proclamation that the slaves would be freed.

The next Todd Akin

Hoo boy.

"Garrett Soldano, a Republican candidate for governor in Michigan, recently explained why he couldn't support allowing abortion even after a woman had been raped: 'They don't know that little baby inside them may be the next president, may be the next person who changes humanity.' He went on to urge pregnant rape victims to carry their pregnancies to term, offering these words of comfort: 'How about we start inspiring women in the culture to let them understand and know how heroic they are and how unbelievable they are that God put them in this moment.' Wow. I mean, just... wow. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... the next Todd Akin."



OK, so that means...

Representative Zoe Lofgren gets off a good one! Here was her response to Donald Trump claiming Mike Pence should have "overturned the election" (since we find we cannot improve upon her words one bit):

I guess the former president is saying that the vice president gets to choose the next president. In which case, Kamala Harris will be presiding at the [next] counting of the [electoral] votes. I guess he's saying she gets to chose who the next president is.

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris on Twitter: ChrisWeigant
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

[flying rabbit]

1. K&R. nt