|
Dear Group, Last week we watched as Republican Senators twisted themselves in knots. Their fervent desire is to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, and to do so as fast and with as little scrutiny as possible. The nation watched as Dr. Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Brett Kavanaugh, then a teenager, sexually assaulted her. Kavanaugh, for his part, mirroring the antics of the man who nominated him, came out swinging and emotional…and carefully dodged questions as to why he would object to an FBI investigation. In his confirmation hearing he posed himself as a man of gleaming virtue. Is he now concerned a former classmate might put the lie to his self-characterization by recounting drunken, hormone-fueled exploits of Kavanaugh’s teenage years? All of that brings me to Judge Ginsburg. No, not Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She is not related to the man whose Supreme Court nomination I wish for you to remember. The man to remember is Douglas Howard Ginsburg, currently still a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On October 23, 1987, Ronald Reagan’s nominee, Robert Bork was voted down by the full Senate 58-42. Democrats held a slim majority at that time, but in the final vote 6 Republican Senators crossed over and voted against confirmation and 2 Democrats voted for it. On October 29, 1987, six days after Bork was voted down, Reagan tried again, nominating Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg for the vacant Supreme Court seat. On November 7, just nine days after his nomination, Douglas Ginsburg withdrew from consideration. It was revealed by Nina Totenberg of NPR that Judge Ginsburg had used marijuana. He withdrew in response, rather than try to weather the storm. Consider that for a moment. Had he killed someone, had he assaulted a teenage girl, had he robbed a store in a youth? No, the assertion he had used marijuana while he was professor was sufficient for him to withdraw. At the time marijuana was illegal…and ubiquitous. His use had hurt no one, but it was clear to him that the fact of use itself was disqualifying for the Supreme Court. He remains a Circuit Court judge in good standing to this day. Hardly anyone remembers his nomination. Contrast that to Kavanaugh’s Trumpian combativeness at his hearing last Thursday, coupled with his complete unwillingness to say he would agree to an investigation of assault of which he is accused. Add other women who have come forward to contradict Kavanaugh’s personal recollection of an unblemished past. Consider Ginsburg’s fate. He is sits in judgement on the D.C. Circuit. The Senate confirmation process is a job interview, not a judicial proceeding. Kavanaugh in his partisan combativeness last Thursday has already demonstrated he is not Supreme Court material. How far we’ve strayed… When you vote in a few weeks remember that our own McMorris Rodgers is an integral part of the Republican/Libertarian bloc that wants to see Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. It would be a crowning achievement of Republican/Libertarian insurgency. She would like us to think she is detached from this unseemly brawl. “In my understanding…” are not credible words from a woman who is nominally “the fourth most powerful Republican in Congress.” Keep to the high ground, Jerry P.S. Let’s add a little more context. Lewis Powell (a story for another day) announced his retirement from the Supreme Court June 26, 1987. Reagan’s third nominee, none other than Anthony Kennedy, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on February 3, 1988, by a vote of 97 to 0. Take note: That was 7 months after Powell stepped down. In contrast, we are now only 3 months after that same Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his intent to retire. These same Republicans who are now so anxious to replace Justice Kennedy with Kavanaugh saw fit to simply ignore the nomination of Merrick Garland for nearly 10 months, the longest nomination “process” (failed or successful) in U.S. Supreme Court history. If the Republicans were interested in the preservation of democracy and the perceived legitimacy of the Supreme Court they would take their time and nominate a candidate as broadly acceptable as Anthony Kennedy. Instead, this is a naked, high-stakes power grab. Keep to the high ground, Jerry
|
LB/CMR in The Atlantic…and More
Dear Group,
With sixty-one days to go until the General Election on November 6, I offer links to two of my favorite articles from this week.
The first appeared in The Atlantic on Labor Day. It is entitled “The Republican Leadership Member Most Likely to Lose.” It features our very own CD5 Rep and leads off with a great photograph McMorris Rodgers and Paul Ryan. The article is well worth the time to read before rolling up your sleeves, screwing up your courage, signing up, and going out with a group to knock on doors. (Scroll down and click the “Canvassing Links” in Calendar below). There is more than enough evidence this election will be won based on face-to-face, door-by-door conversations.
The second article “It’s not about Kavanaugh’s judicial philosophy” appeared on the opinion page of the Spokesman last Tuesday, September 4. The author is Max Boot, a conservative commentator and thinker worth reading.
I disagree with Boot’s conclusion that “…Trump has every right to appoint a justice who will reflect the preferences of his base.” Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party abdicated any “right” to this appointment when they stiffed Merrick Garland and trashed the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments to approve Neil Gorsuch. That said, Boot’s article is worth reading for it’s takedown of the Republican/Libertarian disingenuous talking points about “originalism” and “judicial activism.” It is past time to lay those ideas to rest. Boot does so incisively.
The prize for Mitch McConnell and the Republican/Libertarians is achieving a laissez-faire capitalist majority on the Supreme Court. With Kavanaugh the Court will lean heavily business and capitalist friendly for decades.
This illicit Libertarian political takeover of the Court raises the importance of the midterm and 2020 elections. Until 2020 the only protection we can offer the democratic process is to change the Congress, a body now composed of a majority of Trump sycophants anxious to please him as long as he is useful in supporting their ideology. These sycophants, our CD5 sycophant included, need to go.
We have an historic opportunity this November in eastern Washington to register our disapproval of Trump’s autocratic tendencies and the Republicans who support him. Don’t wake up on November 7 wishing you had done just a little more… Join the door-knockers this weekend.
Back on Monday. See you on the sidewalks.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
An Election for County Treasurer…or a “Knife Fight?”
Dear Group,
“County treasurers in Washington state don’t make policy decisions, but instead follow state law with respect to how public funds are handled, managed, and invested.”
County treasurer is a job best held by someone qualified to do the work, not a career politician. The Democratic candidate for Spokane County Treasurer (an open position this year) is David Green, a certified public accountant with a degree in law and years of experience in finance and management. It would be hard to imagine a more qualified candidate for the job. I encourage you to visit his website, not street-fighting credentials.
Opposing David Green for the position of Spokane County Treasurer is the soon-to-be former State Senator from 6th Legislative District, Michael Baumgartner. I have written of this man’s inappropriate candidacy in a longer article entitled “Expertise or Ideology?“
Lacking expertise, Mr. B is running on name recognition re-inforced by a bloom of recycled yard signs (from an attempt to unseat Senator Maria Cantwell), blue themed yard signs that avoid stating his party affiliation or the position for which he is running. He is relying on the electoral inattention of the voters. These signs cry out, “When you see this name ask no questions, just fill in the oval!”
Mr. B’s post-Primary email (8/8/18 at 1:17PM) to his supporters provided the title of this post [the bold is mine]:
Friends,
Thank you! I’m pleased to have earned 54% of the vote last night, but it’s very clear that this is going to be a very tough election cycle.
The primary is over. The general election is going to be a door-to-door knife fight. Your help is more critical than ever!
I do not know Mike Baumgartner personally, but having received his legislative and candidate emails for years I despise his attitude. His description of the campaign for Spokane County Treasurer as a “door-to-door knife fight” is far off key for a job that demands expertise, calm, and bi-partisan sensibilities, not gang credentials.
I encourage you to share this widely, meet David Green, plant a David Green yard sign (I have one), go canvass for him. Let’s send his inappropriately belligerent opponent to the partisan political dust bin where he belongs.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
P.S. For Mr. Baumgartner it seems that everything is a fight, Republicans vs. Democrats, eastern Washington versus western Washington. Life is never about collaboration. I thought this was particularly on display in a fundraising email from him on July 21, 2017:
...we triangulated a strategy to fund the state’s K-12 McCleary case through a “levy swap equalization” that will reduce overall property taxes on nearly 75% of households (largely in areas represented by Republicans) and increase property taxes largely in the Seattle area (represented by Democrats).
For Mr. B funding public education is a matter of sticking it to the homeowners who live in Legislative Districts represented by those evil Democrats.
Who’s a “Career Politician?”
Dear Group,
McMorris Rodgers is 49 years old. In each of the 27 years since she graduated from Pensacola Christian College (unaccredited at the time) she has been in politics, either as an aid to a politician (Bob Morton, WA State Rep from LD7 at the time) or as a politician herself (the last 24.5 years). She is the very definition of a “career politician.” (See Who is She Really? for more background.)
In contrast, Lisa Brown is 61 years old. Twenty years of which were spent in politics, all of it serving in the Washington State legislature. Her life experience includes successfully raising a son as a single mother, earning a Masters degree and then a Ph.D. in Economics, and teaching for two decades (eight years concurrent with her time as a state legislator) as an associate professor. In the last five years she held the position of chancellor of Washington State University Spokane.
This comparison was stimulated by an article by Kip Hill in the Spokesman Review from July 16 entitled “Truth testing: The negative ads from Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Lisa Brown.” The article covers a number of peculiar claims from the McMorris Rodgers camp including the claim Lisa Brown is a “career politician.” I’ve copied part of the article below. I have no idea why Mr. Hill chose to express time as a politician in days rather than years.
Claim: Lisa Brown is a “career politician.”
Source: Cathy McMorris Rodgers TV spot “Liberal Lisa.”
McMorris Rodgers’ ad opens with the assertion that Brown is a “career politician.” Brown was an economics professor for 12 years before she joined the Washington state Legislature in 1993. She continued to teach at Eastern Washington and Gonzaga universities during her time in the Legislature. After leaving the Senate at the end of 2012, she served five years as chancellor of Washington State University.
By contrast, McMorris Rodgers’ job after graduating Pensacola Christian College was as an aide to state Rep. Bob Morton, whom she replaced in 1994. She’s been in politics ever since.
In total, as of Sunday, McMorris Rodgers has served 8,953 days [24.5 years] in office between her time in Olympia and Washington, D.C. Brown has served 7,310 days [20 years].
The take-home message: 1) Lisa Brown has spent less of her time in politics than McMorris Rodgers, but plenty time to understand legislation and compromise, 2) Lisa Brown has had a broader life experience and educational background than the incumbent career politician.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
The Task Before Us
|
2018 August 7 Primary Ballot Final Turn-In for the ten counties of Congressional District 5 (Source: Secretary of State of the State of Washington.) (see the P.S. below my writing for one fine point on this data) |
Dear Group,
Here is the take-home before dwelling on the details: 205,393 registered voters in Congressional District turned in ballots in the August 7 Primary Election. 232,197 registered voters did not bother to vote. Among those 232,197 non-primary-voting registered voters, there are many Democrats who tend only to vote in presidential election years and many disgusted Republicans who can be convinced over the next seventy-two days to cast a ballot by November 6th.
The obvious practical purpose of the Primary Election, in cases where there are more than two candidates, is to chose who advances to the General Election in November. (Washington and California are the only two states using this “top two” or “jungle” primary.)
The Primary Election serves a second purpose. It is a large (but very non-random) poll that speaks to electoral strategists of possibility. State and federal strategists from both Parties have looked at the Primary numbers in eastern Washington–and they all see possibility in those 232,197 non-primary-voting registered voters. The board is prepared and it is game on. The wild card is the energy of unpaid volunteers.
More votes in the Primary beget organization and money as applied to the General Election. The “wave” analogy is apt. There is a wave building all over the ten counties of Congressional District 5. It has been many years since there has been a Democratic challenger for nearly every seat in every State Legislative District (3,4,6,7, and 13) that overlaps with U.S. Congressional District 5. (District 13, overlapping Lincoln County from the west [part of CD5] is the single exception and only for an unchallenged State Senate seat).
The numbers from the Primaries are attracting attention in places like Legislative District 6 where Jessa Lewis, Kay Murano, and Dave Wilson, all thoughtful, energetic Democrats, look very competitive. (District 6 is a weirdly shaped district drawn to nibble at Spokane from the west, north, and south.) Then there’s District 4, east and Northeast of Spokane, where Matt Shea looks more like a wingnut every day, and Ted Cummings and Mary May, two intelligent, reasonable, upright Democrats are gaining strength. Up in District 7, the vast northeast, Karen Hardy, Randy Michaelis, and Mike Bell are offering good reasons for Democrats to step out the shadows and vote. All of these good people offer possibility, team effort, and boots on the ground that eastern Washington hasn’t seen in years. Here’s the link to a great map to show you all these territories and how they overlap.
You can slice and dice the Primary Election results until you turn blue (or red), but those results, with 232,197 registered voters sitting out the Primary speak of possibility. Who are these people who didn’t vote? Let’s get out and have a conversation with them.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry
P.S. Ballots are tallied by county in Washington State. Fun fact: Of the ten counties in U.S. Congressional District 5 county borders are shared with CD5 in every case except for the western border of Walla Walla County. That means some few voters captured in my spreadsheet above in Walla Walla county cast there ballot in U.S. Congressional District 4 [between the incumbent Dan Newhouse (R) and Christine Brown (D)].
P.P.S. If you like numbers I recommend a smartphone app “WA State Election Results” you can search for and download for free. https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/ , the WA Secretary of State website offers the current Primary numbers. Under the “Research” dropdown menu on that page are data for years of past elections.
More on Nunes’ Spokane Revelations
|
Dear Group, Here is a bit more background and consideration of the Nunes recording with McMorris Rodgers at the Spokane Club fundraiser. I wrote this around noon yesterday in response to the question, “Who is Rosenstein?” I later read an analysis in the Washington Post, that came to many of the same conclusions. Rosenstein is the United States Deputy Attorney General with jurisdiction over the Mueller investigation. (He has jurisdiction over Mueller because Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General of the United States (and Rosenstein’s boss), has recused himself from overseeing Mueller’s work on account of his (Sessions’) contact with some of the Russians under investigation. Trump has repeatedly criticized Mr. Sessions for choosing to recuse himself, and Trump has openly called for Rosenstein to step aside. Both Sessions and Rosenstein are lifelong Republicans appointed by Trump, and yet they have been the target of Trump’s wrath for thwarting his autocratic tendencies. Rosenstein is the current obstacle in the way of the rabid Republican majority intent on silencing Mueller, as exemplified by Devin Nunes (and, apparently, Cathy McMorris Rodgers) in the recording. If they could impeach (and convict) Rosenstein, getting him out of the way, then Trump would presumably appoint someone to Rosenstein’s position who would end the Mueller investigation. Nunes, who, we might presume, is likely privy to more information about Mueller’s investigation than we are, must be really, really worried about what Mueller knows. At one time, sober Americans discounted presentations like those of Nunes at the Spokane Club as political theater. Why? Well, with only a one vote majority in the Senate the Republicans in Congress have zero chance of actually removing Rosenstein. (Impeachment is only an indictment, the “trial” would be in the Senate. In the Senate a two thirds majority of those present is necessary to convict. [67 if all the Senators vote]) Nunes’ statement at the Spokane Club is absolutely correct that impeaching Rosenstein now would distract the Senate from the Republican/Libertarian’s most important goal of this entire administration: putting in place a youthful majority of oligarchy-friendly Supreme Court justices. This is the Holy Grail of the Republican/Libertarian revolution. This opportunity must not be missed, so any impeachment will have to wait. Nunes at the Spokane Club holds out the idea that retaining a Republican majority in the House is essential to blocking the Mueller investigation. Without a House Republican majority the Republicans will be unable to impeach Rosenstein, he properly suggests. He then implies the whole Republican/Libertarian revolution, “all of this,” will collapse if Mueller is allowed to continue. Of course, Nunes is right that Mueller’s sober, methodical investigation is a major threat to the complete Republican takeover of government, but holding out the impeachment of Rosenstein as a way of silencing Mueller is Constitutional poppycock. Impeachment of Rosenstein is theatrics worthy of Trump. Nunes and McMorris Rodgers are banging the drum, rousing their base, preparing them for confrontation over whatever Mueller ultimately presents, actively working in support of the Trumpian takeover of the Republican Party and the U.S. government. Do not discount the power of Nunes and McMorris Rodgers’ closed door theatrics. We are now in the age of Trump. Trump is a throbbing embodiment of political theater and breathless antics, a man who actually could fire Rosenstein but won’t yet for fear of precipitating a Constitutional crisis or worse. Nunes, McMorris Rodgers and the rest of the Republicans are whipping up the political drama to make firing Rosenstein and silencing Mueller seem acceptable. I remember thinking during the Nixon Presidency that justice would prevail, that our institutions of government would weather the storm, that the rule of law would deal with Nixon’s corruption. Back then, though, the commitment to a full investigation was a bi-partisan enterprise. Now with Nunes and McMorris Rodgers and company trying to push justice to the curb I am losing my confidence that our institutions of government can withstand the onslaught. We are at a dangerous time. Vote these people out before it is too late. Back on Monday. Have a restful weekend, but stay tuned. Keep to the high ground, Jerry |
Devin Nunes in Spokane/What He Said
|
Dear Group, During Devin Nunes’ fundraiser for McMorris Rodgers held at the Spokane Club on July 30 the proceedings were recorded. Selected contents of that recording were presented last evening on the Rachel Maddow show. You can listen to all 20 minutes of the show here. What we know so far all comes from there, although by the time you read this there will be a story on every network and most newspapers. Much of what is revealed is not really all that surprising. We have to assume that behind closed doors most Republican Representatives and Senators at times wish Trump weren’t Trump. Many undoubtedly wish they had achieved a Republican congressional majority with someone like Ted Cruz as President, someone who would not engage in daily political theater, someone a bit less flamboyant, someone whose actions did not so obviously merit legal scrutiny. But Trump is what they have. The recording presented on the Maddow Show makes it clear Nunes, and, apparently, the Republican leadership are willing to do nearly anything to keep Trump where he is and their agenda rolling along. It seems it is a question of the order of things. No. No. It would be bad to impeach Rosenstein now. No, it is more important to get Kavanaugh confirmed first. Nunes does not say so in the recording I’ve heard, but it seems clear there are two reasons: 1) Even if the current Republican house of cards collapses at the midterms another staunchly conservative Supreme Court Justice will change the direction of the Court for decades to come. 2) Kavanaugh’s writing suggest he would tend to support a President against investigation, certainly something useful to have in place before attacking Rosenstein and then taking down the Mueller investigation. Implied in the Nunes recording is that the House leadership will proceed to a Rosenstein impeachment if it looks necessary to protect Trump from the Mueller investigation. After all, justice, it appears, isn’t important, what’s important is this chance to advance the Republican/Libertarian agenda at all costs, the “all of this” that “goes away” in the following Nunes quote. If Sessions won’t unrecuse and Mueller won’t clear the president, we’re [the House Republicans] the only ones. Which is really the danger, I mean we have to keep all these seats. We have to keep the majority. If we do not keep the majority, all of this goes away, I suppose you could argue that Nunes is just trying to impress and strike fear in the hearts of the monied donors in the audience. After all, the plea he makes is to contribute to help us keep our seats because if we lose the House majority we will no longer be able to impeach Rosenstein and protect the President. Then, heaven help us, “all of this goes away.” Isn’t it fascinating that McMorris Rodgers, nominally part of House Leadership herself, brings Nunes to Spokane to provide this closed-door briefing to her donors? Remember McMorris Rodgers is fond of telling her constituents she “supports” the Mueller investigation. Yet here she stands with Nunes, now revealed as planning to impeach Rosenstein if necessary in his quest to protect Trump (and the Republican agenda) from Mueller. I don’t see that as “support” for the Mueller investigation. Time for McMorris to think of packing her bags? This is not the way I want my Representative (and Spokane) in the national news. Keep to the high ground, Jerry |