Joe Biden’s Fake Anger

Mike Grillo

Mike Grillo is a writer who, when not writing, is working in finance and surviving the wilds of being a New Jersey resident. He does not tweet.

Related Post Roulette

115 Responses

  1. Chip Daniels says:

    I consider Biden’s speech to be comparable to Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech, where he famously accused the Confederacy of wanting “rule or ruin”.

    What makes Biden’s speech historic is that it signals a shift in the posture of the Democratic Party, and by extension, American liberalism. It signaled to us that we don’t need to curl up in a fetal position in the face of Republican fascism, but we can boldly and aggressively defend democracy, defend abortion rights, defend LGBTQ rights.

    Even as recently as a decade ago, as same sex marriage was gaining widespread approval, the implicit understanding of the political class was that this could only be done with permission and approval of the Republican Party base.
    This wasn’t a bad assumption- its how democracy works, after all, that bipartisan and widely popular policies are the ones adopted.

    But in the face of Republican radicalization and embrace of unpopular policies, that understanding has been broken. The policy goals of the Republicans are radical and unpopular, and in his speech, Biden was telling us that we no longer need to seek the permission of the radical Republicans. We can loudly support the Roe framework with the confidence that it is the preferred policy of the majority of Americans, regardless of what the Republicans want.

    Biden’s speech defined the terms of the conflict clearly- he attacked, not conservatism or its principles, but the radical faction of Republicans who are see democracy and the rule of law as impediments to their widely unpopular policies.

    What is notable is the sharp shift in the opinion of the Democratic base- Biden is now seen as a fighter, rather than a weak appeaser.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      What is notable is the sharp shift in the opinion of the Democratic base- Biden is now seen as a fighter, rather than a weak appeaser.

      Something, Something, Democrats aren’t fighters, something, somethingReport

    • PD Shaw in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      You almost certainly have not read the whole thing:

      “A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy [i.e., the United States] shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can.”Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to PD Shaw says:

        If Twitter were around then, the response would have been:

        @ALincoln This you?
        August 1, 1861: Abraham Lincoln Makes William T. Sherman a General
        #totalwar #burningofatlantaReport

  2. Philip H says:

    And now comes another “whataboutism” attempt form a conservative who can’t really bring himself to diagnose the symptoms in his diseased Party.

    Granted, there is an element to the Republican Party these days that are devoted to 2020 election denialism, and I wish more Republicans would speak out against Trump’s deranged fantasies of getting “reinstalled” as president as if he were illegally removed.

    An element? This is the central thesis of most Republicans running for reelection. All summer we’ve seen good solid conservatives run out of office in primaries for NOT hewing to this fiction. Just this week, Michigan Republican officials sued the governor to force her to rerun the 2020 election.

    Trump tried to have the results of an election overturned. He violated the 12th amendment by claiming Mike Pence had the authority to reject electoral votes. He failed to intervene when a riot broke out at the United States Capitol. His subsequent impeachment was well-deserved, and Mitch McConnell committed one of the more egregious tactical errors of his Senate career by not convincing enough Republicans to convict.

    I’m pretty sure the good Senator from Kentucky disagrees. McConnel knows how to get and keep power, and he rightly deduced that the path to power ran through Trump – and still does. He has no intentions on giving up when his Party is so close – in his estimation – to achieving permanent ruling status. Which means his tactics in this decision were where he needed them to be.

    That doesn’t let the Democrats off the hook for rank illiberalism, including the dismissal of constitutional processes and dangerous attacks on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Dismissing the electoral college, falsely labeling the legislative filibuster as a “relic of Jim Crow,” denying election results due to unproven allegations of “voter suppression,” and claiming Supreme Court decisions have no legitimacy because Trump nominated three justices are threats to the democratic order.

    Where this rhetoric backed by any sort of legislative action you might have a point. Its not. Which makes your subsequent analogy of two violent crimes still being violent cirmes really misleading. Trump committed an insurrection. Biden committed jaywalking at best. And its an interesting world to believe that the pointing out of the reality of the current political environment (where most citizens in the US think less of SCOTUS in polling then thy do of Congress, whom they don’t think well of at all) is somehow an assault of the institutions being questioned. Chief Justice Roberts and his fellow justices brought that all on themselves quite freely.

    Has any prominent, elected Democrat stepped forward to call out Stacey Abrams for her election denialism from 2018 or after? It didn’t end in 2018. She defended her refusal to concede the results as recently as a month ago. In 2021 she said of Kemp, “he became the governor” as though it was an installation rather than an election.

    Ask, “So, is that the baseline? One can deny the results of an election just so long as it doesn’t result in violence. Is that how it works?”

    At least she acknowledged that, under Georgia’s laws at the time, he won. Trump and most of the Republican Party STILL refuse to do for President Biden. She acknowledged the outcome and the framework in which it occurred.

    What you might want to spend some time ruminating on is the part of her 2018 speech where she calls Kemp out – rightly – for adjudicating who was eligible and who wasn’t in an election where he was running for higher office. And adjudicated it in a way that disenfranchised Democrats and people of color disproportionately. That’s an assault on democracy, and it’s in line with what Trump inflicted on our nation.Report

    • Mike Grillo in reply to Philip H says:

      This is typical of the kind of laziness I’ve come to expect. Rather than address what I wrote, it’s easier to blubber about “whataboutism.”

      ” This is the central thesis of most Republicans running for reelection.”

      That is complete nonsense. The central thesis? From whom? Be specific. Marco Rubio? Tim Scott? John Thune? Todd Young? Mike Crapo? I mean, if it is as you say “the central thesis of most Republicans running for reelection” then it shouldn’t be hard for you to show your work.

      “McConnel knows how to get and keep power, and he rightly deduced that the path to power ran through Trump – and still does. He has no intentions on giving up when his Party is so close – in his estimation – to achieving permanent ruling status.”

      There is no such thing as “permanent ruling status.” And I can guarantee you that he agrees. If McConnell had his way, the GOP would not have JD Vance, Blake Masters and Herschel Walker as Senate candidates. McConnell is at heart, an institutionalist. He wants a majority, and he has made it well-know that the likelihood the GOP has a majority in the Senate in 2023 is slim because of the crappy candidates Trump backed.

      “Where this rhetoric backed by any sort of legislative action you might have a point.”

      That’s ridiculous. When people in positions of power speak and crap on institutions, the entire point is to try and sway the public into doubting those institutions. Do you think they were calling the filibuster a relic of Jim Crow for shits and giggles? It’s a strategy and one that doesn’t get waved away. Also, plenty of Democrats have introduced legislation to pack the court, and get rid of the electoral college. As for the filibuster, it was only Manchin and Sinema that kept it from happening.

      And Abrams did not acknowledge that Kemp won. In her non-concession speech she said, “I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election.”

      That’s not her saying he won. She followed it up with, “Concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper. As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede.”

      That is election denialism. Nothing more.Report

  3. Chris says:

    I was gonna hold my tongue, but then I saw the “typical of the kind of laziness I’ve come to expect” comment, so the tone has been set. Man, I’ve agreed with almost no one who’s written for this site ever (except about music and books), but even on the pretty boring subject of partisan politics, there is no denying that there were some really smart and insightful people writing here (some of whom are, in fact, well-known writers today). And now there’s, well, this, which reads like it got its talking points (“Be sure to mention Stacy Abrams any time you talk about attempts to steal the 2020 election!”) from the newsletter of a Young Republicans club at a small midwestern religious college. It truly makes me sad.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Chris says:

      Eh, I kind of see Stacy Abrams as an important example to use when it comes to various unprecedented wrongs being decried.

      See also: Russia stealing the election for Trump.

      “How dare you remember things?” undercuts its own moral positioning. Sure, it starts strong with “how dare you” but the follow up really takes the wind out of the sails.

      As for the quality of conservative writing… well, you get more of what you reward and less of what you punish, I guess. We used to know that.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

        I fail to see how a robust responses form the left side of the aisle are a punishment for conservative writing. Do enlighten us will you?Report

      • Chris in reply to Jaybird says:

        Look, I’m no Abrams fan, but the action she took after she felt like she’d been cheated (and feeling like you’ve been cheated is of course not new to either side in politics) was start an organization to get a ton of people registered to vote. So if you want to compare the two on levels of illiberalism, that’s what the 2020 denialist Republicans have to be compared to.

        But more than that, like, this feels a lot like a, “Stacy Abrams said she was cheated, so Dems can’t be mad at what Republicans do,” which is, frankly, very very stupid.Report

        • InMD in reply to Chris says:

          This sums it up. The distinction is sour grapes versus a physical attack on a ministerial process. One is distasteful, but probably inevitable for anything decided by a vote. The other poses a real threat to the system itself.Report

          • Saul Degraw in reply to InMD says:

            Most people get miffed when they lose but Stacey Abrams took concrete steps to get out the vote and it helped elect two Democratic Senators in Georgia in 2020. The Republicans look at this and state “how can this be? I demand to be a majority.”Report

        • North in reply to Chris says:

          So much this. The desperate grasping for false equivalence would make Broder blush.

          And let’s not even start with the pathetic efforts to write Mcconnell’s new use of the filibuster which is, at most, a decade or so old, into the constitution.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Chris says:

          Did you think that I was criticizing that she started an organization?

          If so, let me apologize. I did not mean to give that impression.Report

          • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

            I dunno dude. I think Stacey Abrams allegations about the GA gubernatorial election are at absolute best, unsubstantiated. Her approach to that was cynical, and IMO kinda bullshit. I see it as a similar kind of bullshit to the idea that the integrity of the system depends on universal vote by mail, which half the country didn’t have until 5 minutes ago, or if early voting is allowed for 6 hours or 8 on Sundays, or whether people can hand out water bottles within 200 feet of a polling place or whatever.

            But I don’t see any of that kind of bullshit as apples to apples to what’s going on with the GOP. What’s wrong is wrong, and these points about the Democrats will have merit coming from them only when and if they get their own house in order.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

              Please understand: I am not defending the GOP.

              Trump was awful and unprecedented.

              But they’re not limiting attacks to the unprecedented awful stuff. They’re saying stuff like “how dare he question the integrity of the election?” as if crossing that rubicon is unprecedented.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

                There’s certainly a BSDI aspect to unsubstantiated grumbling about whether a particular election was fair. I personally don’t like it, and think the kind of sour grapes involved is loser talk for losers no matter who is doing it. Winners don’t do that stuff. To play off Sean Connery in the Rock, they go home and make love to the prom queen with affirmative consent each step of the way and all pronouns in play acknowledged and validated.

                But I still have to point out that so far at least it is only one side that pre-emptively declared an election rigged then turned that sort of grumbling into physical violence intended to prevent perhaps the most important thing about the US system of government. I don’t think there’s any good case for watering it down with lesser sins that the 1st Amendment probably compels us to tolerate.

                Which takes it back to the OP. While I found Biden’s speech kind of strange and maybe a little miscalculated in tone, the whole piece is just nonsensical. The Democrats engaged in some sadly typical, cynical politicking after high profile defeats and therefore it’s just fine and dandy to institutionalize support for a violent attack on a seat of government? It just doesn’t follow and I don’t think there’s a valid point to be made by comparing the two.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

                I don’t think there’s a valid point to be made by comparing the two.

                Valid logically?

                I agree 100%.

                Valid emotionally?

                Well, this is where we get into the whole thing of perception and emotional responses and whatnot.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

                Yea, but that’s where I would ask conservatives to focus on embracing their own values. I think some of the strongest cultural critiques they make are of the kind of pop preschool progressivism that in practice seems to say everyone needs their personal feelings officially validated by some authority no matter how irrational or unhealthy they may be. This is a case where conservatism would be made stronger by engaging in some of that kind of introspection, and rejecting that which they already say they do.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

                They’ve embraced the progressivism of 1993 or thereabouts.

                Values? What the heck are values?

                They’re mostly saying “I was progressive back then, then I won, now I’m saying I shouldn’t have to change any more!”Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

                What makes them think they can’t fight that battle in the political and cultural arena without buying into one man’s vanity project? Especially when whatever usefulness he had increasingly looks like it peaked somewhere between 6 years ago and the day Coney Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

                I think it’s because the one guy’s vanity project gave more wins (using Conan’s “best in life” definition of “wins”) than playing with the quiet dignity provided by the GOPe.

                Here’s something I said back in May 2016 and I still stand by it:

                Conservative, in this case, seems to mean “the type of liberalism that was mainstream in 1986 or thereabouts”. A good, straightforward, Walter Mondale/Mike Dukakis tax and spendism, a return to a less vigorous foreign policy, embracing the welfare state and shoring it up (but not *TOO* much, of course), and otherwise being staid and genteel.

                Well, plus gay marriage, of course.

                The liberalism of 30 years ago.

                Now, of course, back in the 80’s, you’d still have conservatives (or “conservatives”) who argued that we needed to abolish this or that Federal Department of This Or That. (Remember when “We need to abolish the Department of Education!” was something that presidential candidates said? Good times.) Now, of course, those Departments are no longer fairly new and getting rid of them is no longer “going back to the way we were before” but “let’s change this thing that we’ve had for a long long time”.

                Conservatism as a brake, as a voice that says “let’s do things the way my parents did them (but not my grandparents, because that’s crazy talk)”. A conservatism whose job it is to lose every battle, but lose it slowly, and with dignity.

                I can see why we’d want those people to be like that.
                I just don’t see why they’d agree to it.

                Trump was them no longer agreeing to lose slowly and with dignity.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

                McCain lost is a Blue Wave.

                Romney lost to a popular incumbent.

                Trump beat Hillary and then lost even with all the advantages of incumbency.

                So much winning,Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                Ahem:

                A conservatism whose job it is to lose every battle, but lose it slowly, and with dignity.

                I can see why we’d want those people to be like that.
                I just don’t see why they’d agree to it.

                Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

                Losing quickly screaming “It’s not fair!” is so much better.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

                The millions of bootlickers, apparently.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                Kinda makes you wonder why they’d pick that over something as dignified as Mittler Rommelney.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

                They like to imagine him crushing their enemies’ testicles. Trump at least talks about it, which Mitt never does.

                Why do they think a pathetic whiner is a tough guy? Beats me.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

                But did he really? And I don’t mean that to be flip. Other than triggering the right people for awhile and walking through the breach McConnel created on the Supreme Court I’m not sure he did anything lasting.*

                Like the one insight he may have had that got him over the line in 2016 was promising not to mess with entitlements. And in the greater scheme of our politics the biggest GOP liability is a broad understanding by the voting public of just what they’d do to social security and Medicare if they could get away with it. Yet that hasn’t stuck with the party at all, and he’s now in the process of turning what would in any normal circumstances be a red wave into November into a small changing of the tides. Remember too your theory of the 3 sets of voters in all of this.

                *Obviously there is Roe but I think the jury is still out as to whether that is a long term win for the GOP. My bet is they messed up big time.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

                There are two answers to the question “What is best in life?”

                The first answer might be the “dignified” answer.

                Conan’s answer, however, tends to be embraced more than the dignified one.

                If your measurements for “victory” include “hear the lamentations of the women”, Trump might be the most successful president since Bush.

                “But success should be measured differently”

                Sure. Okay.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

                I mean, I’m not thinking dignified versus carnal pleasure. I’m thinking results. Which is where my core question for the right really comes in- what do they want and how are they advancing it? Because while the thrills and the lolz may be great I’m not seeing much else, unless all the conservative movement actually cares about is tax cuts for rich people. The quandary for me is I don’t really think it is, even though it’s all they ever seem to get.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

                Well, to go back to the three legs of the stool, there are three kinds of conservatives (if I may use a broad brush).

                1. Hawks
                2. Fiscons
                3. Socons

                The hawks pretty much won the cold war, pretty much. The Fiscons got their tax breaks, pretty much.

                The Socons? Those poor bastards. Well, the dog finally caught the car and instead of doing something temperate like instituting a ban after 15 weeks or 12 weeks or whatever, they immediately went about doing stuff that, days before, would have been dismissed as strawmen by the Douthat types.

                Deontology, man.

                Anyway, the thing we’ve still not wrestled with since 2016 is the whole Elite vs. Populist thing and after decades of Elite Right vs. Elite Left arguments, we’re finally having Populist vs. Elite arguments and they don’t really map the same way the old arguments went, do they?

                Certainly not using the various templates that bubbled up in the old Right vs. Left paradigm.

                The conservative movement used to be the different voices among the Elite Right as they catered to the Elite portions of the three legs of the stool.

                The populist right? They don’t map *AT ALL*.

                Like, there are actually people confused that LatinX and other BIPOCs are tempted by this new populist right when there was nigh-zero affection for the elite right.

                What does the new populist right want?

                Whatever it is, it doesn’t seem to have a whole lot of overlap with the GOPe. Yelling “WE CAN GIVE YOU TAX CUTS!” stopped working and, god help us, the GOPe can’t think of yelling anything else.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Give us some examples of what you consider to be “populist right”, and we can figure what they want.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Let’s Chip and Jaybird describe conservative motivations!Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                The quickest example to come to mind are the minority communities who are opposed to defunding the police.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                So Chicago Mayor Lightfoot is populist right, and the MAGAs calling for defunding of the FBI are…the elitist left?

                Not so sure I agree with your police work there, Lou.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Reframing it as a “HOW DO I REFRAME THIS AS LEFT OR RIGHT” will pretty much ensure that you won’t agree with it.

                That’s cool.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Who is “reframing”‽
                You’re the one constructing the framing.

                I’m just asking for clarification if that’s really what you meant.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I mentioned minority communities being opposed to defunding the police.

                You immediately assumed I was talking about the mayor of Chicago and (presumably white) people who want the FBI defunded.

                Which, quite honestly, seems to ignore stuff like minority communities that are opposed to defunding the police.

                But that’s cool.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Well, doesn’t Lori Lightfoot meet your criteria?

                If not, why?

                I’m really looking for public figures who fit your criteria for “right populist” so we can get a handle on what this looks like and as you asked, “what they want”.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                When I talk about “minority communities”, I’m generally not talking about the people in power, but the people in the communities.

                I’m really looking for public figures who fit your criteria for “right populist”

                There’s your problem.

                You want the celebrities despite the fact that I’m deliberately not talking about big names.

                Left vs. Right is the only paradigm you can really grasp.

                And so here we are.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                It sounds like whether you are a populist or not has less to do with some creed or ideology, than your identity.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I suppose that that’s accurate. Might also have to do with identities that are effectively defined as not available as well.

                Some mixture of class and caste, maybe.

                As opposed to Left/Right. A really rich person might or might not be able to properly argue “not *THAT* rich” to someone else.

                “I’M LEFTER THAN YOU!” is always available.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                So the American populist right is organized around class and caste?

                Yeah, I think that’s probably right.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                It’s weird that there is more than one axis, huh?

                Not very progressive!Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

                Oh I know that, and that we’re dealing with a tough to map constituency. But what I’d really like to ask is if such people actually believe that it is them sticking it to the elites (of whatever persuasion) when they vote for these game show hosts and former NFL players with TBI and crossfit conspiracy theory junkies. Or is it them who are being taken for a ride, again?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

                Oh, I’m sure they’re being taken for a ride.

                But something is rumbling.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                “Valid emotionally”= “Truthiness”
                Things that aren’t true but you kinda want them to be.

                Which actually explains most of Republican thinking.

                Democrats stealing elections is valid emotionally.

                Democrats grooming children for sex is valid emotionally.

                Democrats burning cities to the ground is valid emotionally.

                Hillary killing Vince Foster is valid emotionally

                Climate change being a hoax is valid emotionally.

                COVID being a bioweapon escaping from a lab is valid emotionally.

                The earth is flat and 6000 years old is valid emotionally.

                This how the right has descended so easily into fascism, because of decades of grooming with absurd hysteria.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip, if you know how to measure this or that, we can measure this or that.

                “The number is X!”, you can then say. If someone else says “No, the number is Y!”, you can point to the measurement. (Perhaps you could argue that you aren’t trained to read scientific studies and, therefore, no one else should be able to appeal to them.)

                If we’re just talking about cultural stuff?

                Truthiness is what you got. Take comfort in how everyone you know agrees with you. Take further comfort in how you can’t imagine someone who wouldn’t.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Look, you’re the one who asserted that a falsehood was “Valid emotionally”.

                Now you’re just defending it by saying “Many people are saying!”Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “Many people are feeling”

                “THEY SHOULDN’T!”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Please understand.
                I’m not disagreeing with you.

                I’m just pointing at and noting how the Republican project is built atop grievance and resentment, making it susceptible to absurd hysteria and conspiracy theories, with a flagrant disregard for truth.

                Now that you and I have agreed on that, our only divergence is what should be done about it.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                My recommendation is prefaced with something like “remember that the game is iterated before we institute solutions”.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Dark Brandon calls it “F*ck Around and Find Out.”Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Funny. That’s how I saw 2016.Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird says:

                That’s exactly right. It’s exactly what you’d tell a kid who’s scared of the monster under the bed.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

                Chip, if you know how to measure this or that, we can measure this or that.

                “The number is X!”, you can then say. If someone else says “No, the number is Y!”, you can point to the measurement. (Perhaps you could argue that you aren’t trained to read scientific studies and, therefore, no one else should be able to appeal to them.)

                We can, and do, measure voter fraud. Its a findable statistic. And yet inspite of that, we have stories – like the one I linked to below – where the measurement is completely disregarded by one side because of your emotional “truthiness” and in so doing there is now a significant risk to democracy in the US.

                That’s not cultural dude.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                And we can discuss stuff like the illegitimate election in 2000 and the irregularities in Ohio in 2004 and whether the Russians were the cause of the election swinging to Trump in 2016 or whether Stacy Abrams actually conceded at any point.

                We’re not in “findable statistics” there. We’re in belly feel and perfectly understandable emotional responses.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

                Democrats always cheat isn’t an understandable emotional response. Its political dogma.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                That’s what you feel I am arguing?

                Huh.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

                Yes. These are the things that arise for us with your writing style.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H says:

                “These are the things that arise for us with your writing style.”

                oh look, it’s the intellectual superior to us trog thugs, telling us that how he feels about us is more true and valid than the actual words we’ve written.Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck says:

                I can’t assess the words he’s written if they don’t communicate to me what he’s trying to communicate. Despite all my years here, I still struggle with seeing what his point is in a clear and direct way. Part of that is on me, but part of that is on him. Especially since it’s been pointed out to him by many people here that his writing style creates problems of understanding.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H says:

                Steve Bannon has surrendered to New York officials and is charged with fraud.

                This is all of a piece, the Republican penchant for hysterical conspiracy and the constant roiling grifting of the rubes.

                When you feel that you are surrounded by dark evil conspiracies, and believe absurdities about how the world works, you become easy prey for hucksters and con men.Report

      • Pinky in reply to Jaybird says:

        That’s crazy talk. Just crazy. Comparing Stacy Abrams to an election-denier is as crazy as comparing Hillary Clinton to someone who mishandled confidential documents.Report

        • InMD in reply to Pinky says:

          I don’t think anyone needs to defend whatever instance of D griping, even where pretty unseemly, to see that something else is going on here. At the end of the day Gore walked away. Kerry walked away. HRC walked away. The one guy we’ve had who didn’t walk away was Trump, and support for that decision is being made into a litmus test.Report

          • Pinky in reply to InMD says:

            I didn’t hear, is Trump still hiding out in the White House?

            I’m not saying that Trump didn’t take it to the next level, or at least the next exit on the road that D’s and R’s have been travelling down for a while. But looking over Philip’s articles, it looks like most of the election deniers didn’t get the nod, and some of the ones that did…well, there may be proof out there that they actually denied the election results but these articles didn’t bother to include it. Yeah, it stinks that they feel obligated to say something vague about it, but it’s no worse than the Dems who feel obligated to say that black people aren’t able to get ID’s.Report

          • Pinky in reply to InMD says:

            Also, just to say it, I’m being told that the unifying principle of the GOP is the opposite of whatever liberals want, that it’s the preservation of the white male Christian class, and now that it’s the Big Lie. (I’m sure there are other things too that I can’t think of offhand.) And yeah, there can be overlaps between those three, and people on one side can espouse different theories without being contradictory (that is to say, a movement can include people with somewhat contradictory theories without the movement itself being wrong). But I’m getting impatient with people on the other side telling me what my side really believes.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

              How does stealing classified documents and refusing to return them on subpoena and then lying about it comport with what your side really believes?

              How does attacking the capitol to prevent an election certification comport with what your side really believes?

              How does lying about the outcome of that election comport with what your side really believes?

              Because that’s what a LOT of politicians, pundits, and OT writers on your side are DOING on the regular.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

                A lot of politicians, pundits, and OT writers steal classified documents? Attack the Capitol? I’ll give you that too many politicians say things that sound like election lies, but how many pundits or – you brought it up – OT writers do that?Report

            • InMD in reply to Pinky says:

              Well, to be succinct, I’ve always found analysis of the Republican party that read as self flattery to be unlikely as far as insight goes, and I’ve also never been convinced there’s any material amount of fraud or suppression for that matter in modern American elections. Or if there is no one ever seems able to put together any convincing evidence of it. Just unfalsifiable counter factuals about what would happen if the law were x instead of y or y instead of x.

              But where I disagree is on the issue of this particular election being institutionalized by the GOP. January 6 was really extraordinary and GOP politicians are being primaried out of power based on their willingness to assert a lie, which in itself might not be so unusual, but for the fact that the lie led to an attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. In my book that’s way too important to just let go.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to InMD says:

                Florida voters chose to give felons who’d served their sentences the vote back. The legislature changed that to also require paying all fines, but didn’t create a way to determine how much the fines were. The courts have agreed that that limbo is OK.

                Apparently that’s not vote suppression.Report

              • Pinky in reply to InMD says:

                Based on at least one of Philip’s articles, the fringe candidates are losing in the primaries. And the evidence in the other article is weak. I’m sure some people have made explicit statements about the election that aren’t true, but most of what I’ve seen is offhand voter integrity type talk that Democrats have also been doing for decades, just from the other side.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

                There’s a link below to an article documenting training being given to poll workers by a county GOP that they expect poll workers to break the law to try and catch Democrats cheating. To my knowledge Democrats have never even circled that idea, much less made it policy.

                And while SOME of the fringe candidates are loosing, 12 of the 30 Republican Secretary of state primary winners are on the record as election deniers regarding 2020. That’s nearly 1/2. If they get elected to statewide office that is exceedingly worrying.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Pinky says:

                It was a pleasant surprise that the Republican nominee for Secretary of State here in Colorado is not the denialist candidate. That candidate is currently charged with felony violation of state election laws for providing outsiders physical access and passwords for her county’s voting equipment. The county commissioners in her county, all Republicans, voted unanimously to relieve her of all election duties. None of those commissioners have whined about having to pay to replace the equipment because the manufacturer won’t re-certify it.

                Instead the nominee is a Republican County Recorder from one of the big Front Range counties who has a long history as an advocate for our vote by mail system and is frequently consulted by officials in other states about the nuts and bolts of running such a system smoothly.Report

  4. Chip Daniels says:

    I’ll let someone fisk the assertion that the Big Lie isn’t the central feature of Republican orthodoxy.

    The deeper fallacy here is the attempt to equate Democrats criticism of the politicization of institutions like SCOTUS to the politicization itself.

    The MAGA Republicans have embraced the fascist concept that all organs of the state must serve the needs of the party.

    When Democrats criticize the laughably partisan rulings of the MAGA judges, they are defending the institutions from attack.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      If you drop the adjectives, this comment basically says that you don’t want your side to be confined by rulings. Assuming you don’t consciously believe that, it reveals that the point of this comment is the adjectives.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

        Yes the point of the comment is that rulings should not be laughably partisan.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          This is called begging the question. You’re not making an argument; you’re assuming within the argument that the conclusion of the argument is right. Or maybe you’re not even trying to make an argument? It’s just the injection of the same message.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

            Yes, I am assuming that the Democrats who criticize the SCOTUS rulings are correct.
            They believe the rulings are laughably partisan and without legal merit. So their criticisms are a defense of legal tradition and of the institution.Report

  5. LeeEsq says:

    It’s amazing how many Republicans are getting into a tizzy from some mild pushback at their bad behavior.Report

    • Pinky in reply to LeeEsq says:

      A question from a non-lawyer: Article 1 Section 4 says, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” Why would state constitutions or courts have a say in this process? Am I missing something here?Report

      • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

        Am I missing something here?

        Oh jeez. Are you willfully ignoring us? Or do you not actually care?

        We’ve talked and talked and talked about this – this is what you do when you want to take permanent control of a political system, you can’t win in if it’s free and fair. This is what you do when you want to create an authoritarian system.

        Please tell me you get that?Report

        • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

          Yeah, everything fits into your master theory, I know. And I’m not denying that the people bringing the case think it’ll help Republicans. But as a matter of law, why should the state constitutions or courts play a role in the chusing?Report

        • CJColucci in reply to Philip H says:

          Just to touch lightly on the substance, Congress lets the state legislatures prescribe election rules, but Congress can’t give the state legislatures powers they don’t have in their own states. The source of the state legislature’s power to do anything is the constitution of that state, and when state legislatures prescribe rules for elections they must do so consistent with the powers that they have under that constitution. Hence an occasional judicial role.
          And Congress hasn’t said, and probably couldn’t say, that state legislatures can’t delegate some of their power to bodies they duly constitute.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq says:

      This is common to authoritarian factions where they attack democracy via multiple fronts.
      One is simple elections.

      Failing that, to use the legal process to install a result contrary to the desire of the people such as this lawsuit or the elevation of election deniers to positions of control over the election machinery.

      Failing that, they resort to violence such as Jan. 6 or the continued threats and intimidation of electoral officials.

      Under no circumstances do they respect the will of the people.Report

  6. Patrick says:

    “Don’t get me wrong. Trump tried to have the results of an election overturned. He violated the 12th amendment by claiming Mike Pence had the authority to reject electoral votes. He failed to intervene when a riot broke out at the United States Capitol. His subsequent impeachment was well-deserved, and Mitch McConnell committed one of the more egregious tactical errors of his Senate career by not convincing enough Republicans to convict. Had McDonnell done so, Trump would not have been allowed to run for president again, and the shadow of the former president casts over the party wouldn’t exist. ”

    Dude.

    “I wish everyone would cut the bull and stop behaving as if the speech was anything other than a political burner designed to inflame the passions of the Democratic base and to keep them riled up for the next two months.”

    How is this not basically:

    “Don’t get me wrong, literally every complaint of the Democrats is dead-on accurate, but the fact that they’re mad about it is beyond the pale”.

    I honestly don’t know what to say but what the hell is this take.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Patrick says:

      Finance bro wants to finance bro without getting push back that there could be deeply ethical and moral issues with finance and its role in the economy and also does not want to hear how he should pay more taxes on those sweet, sweet bonuses and capital gains.Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to Patrick says:

      It is how a lot of domestic abusers react when finally called out about what they are doing.Report

  7. Saul Degraw says:

    Democratic anger is not fake. A lot of people are legitimately pissed at the holier-than-thou aspects of the GOP and the Big Lie and Republicans really do not want to admit it even those who dislike Trump. They would also not like to deal with the fact that Dobbs is massively unpopular but deal.Report

  8. Philip H says:

    someone tell me please – should Democrats be “fake” angry or “real” angry at things like this:

    During the Wayne County training call, obtained by CNN, the presumption that Democrats cheat – thus justifying Republican rule-breaking – permeated the discussion. It offers a snapshot of one of the ways Trump-backing, MAGA-minded conspiracy theorists are intervening in the election process across the country, sometimes encouraging poll workers or volunteer observers to violate election rules in hopes of finding evidence that Democrats might be doing the same.

    It’s an approach election experts fear could spur chaos and conflict in November’s mid-term elections and in 2024.

    “There is no exception to following the laws; there is no ‘two wrongs make a right,’” said Wendy Weiser, a vice president at The Brennan Center for Justice, which tracks potential insider threats to the election process. Weiser said the center is seeing a spread in efforts by election deniers to infiltrate and manipulate the voting and vote counting process.

    “If poll workers are not committed to following the law, to following the directions of election officials, to protecting the integrity of the election process, they can do serious harm,” Weiser said.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/07/politics/michigan-gop-poll-worker-training-invs/index.htmlReport

  9. Chip Daniels says:

    The speech hit the target:
    Most Americans see Trump’s MAGA as threat to democracy: Reuters/Ipsos poll

    WASHINGTON, Sept 7 (Reuters) – Days after Democratic President Joe Biden gave a fiery speech attacking former President Donald Trump and his Republican allies as an extremist threat, a Reuters/Ipsos poll completed on Wednesday found a majority of Americans believe Trump’s movement is undermining democracy.

    Fifty-eight percent of respondents in the two-day poll – including one in four Republicans – said Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement is threatening America’s democratic foundations.

    Note to the OT Republican commenters-you can choose to be among that “one in four Republicans”.

    But you gotta choose.Report