Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
Manchin voted with Republicans to overturn Biden's vaccine or testing mandate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
Manchin also worked tirelessly to get McConnell on board with letting the Democrats raise the debt limit beyond the midterms.

And even if you disagree with him 80% of the time, I'd rather have Majority Leader Schumer than Senate Majority Leader McConnell. I suspect in 2023, we'll get to see how much gets done when the Republicans take one or both houses.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
No one is "appeasing" Manchin. What the hell do you think the party can do about him -- fire him? He was elected, and there's not a damn thing that can be done to force him to vote in a way he doesn't want to vote.

I find him disgusting -- he's more concerned about his career than about the country, and isn't much better than a Republican in his positions -- but it's outside the power of the party to do anything about him -- or Sinema, for that matter. If more Democrats had been supported in more states and we had a more dependable majority in the Senate, Democrats would actually be "in control" of that body. As it is, and as someone in a thread above stated so accurately, we only have 48 REAL DEMOCRATS in the Senate, and the Republicans have a dependable 50 on almost every issue.

I keep hearing from you and others that "the Democrats" are somehow at fault because one or two jerks ran as "Democrats," got elected, and yet don't support the policies of the party to which they belong. That is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY and not the fault of the party they're defying. And neither you nor anyone else who keeps making that unjust complaint about "the Democrats" has provided a single suggestion of what the hell can be done about it. Without Manchin, McConnell gets the leadership and gets to decide what bills can even come to the floor.

I frankly think you should explain what brilliant strategy would force Manchin to support the Democratic Party's goals and vote with the majority of Democrats for the policies implementing those goals or you should maybe just stop bitching about it. Because if YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT CAN BE DONE TO MAKE HIM STOP OBSTRUCTING THE PARTY, I'M GUESSING NO ONE ELSE DOES, EITHER.

It would be lovely, wouldn't it, if someone had something on him to blackmail him? As long as it were, say, someone named "Chuck." One wonders, from time to time, if someone named "Mitch" might have more information than you or I.


I sure as hell don't.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
My, the Trumpers are intolerant and angry this morning. They sure don't like their RINOs and they want Falwell style 100% purity.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"No one is "appeasing" Manchin. What the hell do you think the party can do about him --"

The Right Honorable Fool asks a good question.

The trouble with the snobs, (we have none on this board thank heavens) - while they hide out in their hand-picked, NON-DIVERSE enclaves....is that beyond the bubble and campus, they really don't know what to do - and they are too arrogant to listen.

Truth and fact is, much of the Democratic proposals - are popular. Even in Red States. Rural health centers. Elder care. More medicare help. CHILD CARE. A clear majority wants it.

*Someone* here, MONTHS ago said repeatedly:

1.)Don't focus on the $3.5 trillion number. It's easy to turn people against a "number".

2.)Break it up into small items - Americans are better off focusing on *one* thing. Heck on this board, full of smart educated people - they can only do "Rittenhouse!" "Trayvon!" "Bannon!" and focus on solely that and then move onto the next one.

3.)Someone here had said - call it the "Child Care Bill". Then the "Senior Health Bill".....and instead of letting a Manchin oppose 3.5 trillion - DARE HIM to be against child-care. Dare him to be against senior -care.

Also, what extremists from their non-diverse bubbles need to understand is - if they want support, instead of calling people names - or doubting that a Senator is truly a Democrat - TALK to people - as people! The snobs forget that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama *both* not only won 2 terms - and Obam even won counties that TRUMP won - -- they didn't sneer at people. They talked to people. And guess what they got a few things done - and got reelected.'

But when Manchin and Sinema "aren't Democrats" - then the Falwell Ayotollahs on the Left need to just sit down and be quiet and enjoy their 401K statements. After all - *some* of them have had to do JUST that all their political lives. And now - what? They are well behaved little girls and boys and even after 8 years of Democrat Regime and now another term - FISA, PATRIOT ACT, WIRETAPS - all the great Bush-Aschroft stuff that *some* pretended to be against with calls of "My Rights!" "My freedoms!!!" - - -are now law of the land - and the bubble-meisters are cool with it, *and* with their own party's Corporate Love Affair.

Manchin! Sinema! They're not Democrats!! Bill Mahr!!! He need to shut up!! That means - one is too extreme for the Democratic Party and for America.

Mind you, this adds to greatest hits - remember someone said about Joe Lieberman "I wish him will"....well, Ned Lamont is now Governor in CT - and lol - nixed the Climate pact with Northeast States.

*Some* can pop off their extreme rhetoric. - - but luckily, we in the mainstream are running things. And they as usual are on the outside, looking in.

*Not one TMF member is personally attacked in this post. Suggestions for promoting the Biden agenda have been repeated. *
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"He was elected, and there's not a damn thing that can be done to force him to vote in a way he doesn't want to vote."

Hold party political events in his state, but don't invite him.

The moment he brags about improvements associated with a bill he voted against, run ads pointing that out (just as should be done with Republicans).

Withhold DNC funding for his events.

(Last resort, waiting until election year): Provide DNC support to another Democratic candidate in the primary.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And in typical Angry-Extremist fashion, spend all that time and money - to accomplish *nothing* and maybe let another seat somewhere get away.

Hence the bushes, the Trumps, have defeated Dems when they should not have.

But t9 Club 401K - results - don't matter.

Only vanity, and tax-free profits.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"Democrats," got elected, and yet don't support the policies of the party to which they belong.

This is demonstrably false.


AP FACT CHECK: Manchin, Sinema do not vote with GOP more

https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-voting-rights-gover...

------------


Manchin has a perfect 100% voting record in support of Biden policies (through December 2nd).

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/jo...

In fact, Manchin's "Biden Margin" (a measure of the difference in his support for Biden vs his state's support for Biden), is the 4th highest in the Senate and highest among all Dems.

One could easily say that Manchin makes more gutsy votes than any other Dem in the Senate. He should be getting your praise instead of your ridicule.


Senema also has a 100% Biden score but her Biden margin is basically flat due to Arizona voting for Biden in the election.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Hold party political events in his state, but don't invite him.

LOL, I guess you folks would prefer the Reps being in control of the Senate? If BBB eventually passes, you will have Manchin to thank - yet you appear to prefer Manchin vote for McConnell for Senate leadership over Schumer.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
And even if you disagree with him 80% of the time, I'd rather have Majority Leader Schumer than Senate Majority Leader McConnell. I suspect in 2023, we'll get to see how much gets done when the Republicans take one or both houses.

That's the biggest problem if Schumer tries to play hardball with Manchin. If Manchin were to jump ship, and don't think that McConnell isn't working Manchin to do that, then the number of Senators it takes to block Biden's agenda drops from 41 to 1. No filibuster is needed to block legislation that never gets brought for a vote.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Hold party political events in his state, but don't invite him.

The moment he brags about improvements associated with a bill he voted against, run ads pointing that out (just as should be done with Republicans).

Withhold DNC funding for his events.


Two words: West Virginia. There will be no "liberal" or "progressive" Democratic candidate who can win an election in West Virginia. That is not going to change. And bully Manchin, and we lose West Virginia.

(Last resort, waiting until election year): Provide DNC support to another Democratic candidate in the primary.

Don't make me laugh. I assume by that you mean someone to the left of Manchin. Yeah. Try it. Good luck with that.

What NEEDED TO BE DONE was for more support to have been given in states that went Republican to genuinely moderate candidates -- not RIGHT WING DEMOCRATS, but MODERATES -- whom the progressives continue to label as "corporate," but who, unlike Manchin, are actually Democrats. We have a last chance in 2022 to save what's left of democracy in this country. We ARE NOT GOING TO ACCOMPLISH THAT BY "CANCELLING" DEMOCRATS WHO CAN'T GET ELECTED IN PURPLE OR RED STATES BY CALLING THEMSELVES "SOCIALISTS."

For ONCE, can't Democrats just swallow hard and be pragmatic? We need a LARGER MAJORITY and this may be our last chance EVER to prevent the fascist/oligarchy criminals from seizing absolute power, and we're out there arguing about the best way to pass our freaking wet dream of a set of policy goals. If we lose in 2022, I promise you, those policy goals are HISTORY. Not in your lifetime or mine, nor in the lifetime of anyone alive today, absent a bloody civil war. They do not intend to give back power, once they've seized it -- House, Senate, Presidency and Supreme Court. If you think this is just a swing of the pendulum -- that these are normal times -- you are so very sadly wrong.

We need every Democrat -- "corporate" or not -- we can get who will protect voting rights. Who will protect democracy. Whether or not we can get child care -- or a just economy -- or abortion rights -- or any other policy we know to be the just, humane, moral, and even most efficient and practical -- we sure as hell won't get any of those things in the future if the fascists who control the Republican Party today achieve their single-minded goal -- a goal which it has pursued now for decades: permanent power.

Driving out Manchin just reduces our power to save democracy. It does nothing whatever to increase it. I despise Manchin -- because I despise the West Virginian mindset which makes it impossible to elect anyone to the left of Genghis Khan. But he has a "D" after his name, and that, for now, keeps the Senate away from Mitch's absolute control. But we need a LOT MORE DEMOCRATS ELECTED IN 2022 if we aren't to fall, at last, to the current worldwide urge to fascism.

Why are Democrats so willing to pretend this isn't happening? None of the Democrats' efforts right now should be at achieving "justice" or policy goals. We should be out there in the states finding the best possible candidates to defeat Republicans -- not "best" in the policy sense, but "best" in the sense of being charismatic, ruthless as Democrats never are, single-minded in the pursuit of salvaging what remains of our democratic system. Manchin is a jerk. Blaming him for what's happening is naive. And blaming "the Democrats" for not forcing him to bend is worse than naive -- it's self-defeating.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why are Democrats so willing to pretend this isn't happening?

If you're modestly cynical, it's because voters don't really care about it. If you're really cynical, it's because of they don't really believe it's happening.

For the former, there's no indication that voters - even Democratic voters - are especially worked up about 'protecting democracy.' And it's hard for Democratic enthusiasm for the issue, because as much as the Democrats use terms like "Jim Crow 2.0," the Republicans haven't really done anything that makes for an easy-to-understand attack on voting rights. That's why Democrats end up falling back on references to how many voting law changes have been adopted (they proposed "X" laws and passed them in "Y" states), rather than castigating the GOP for doing any particular specific thing.

For the latter, the Democratic officials may deep down believe that although all of these changes will affect voting participation a bit on the margins, they're not really threats to Democracy as an institution. We've always had gerrymandering. We've always had things that make it more or less convenient to vote. It's almost certainly vastly easier, in almost every state, to cast a ballot in a federal election than it was 20 years ago - when things like no-excuse absentee ballots and early voting were much rarer. There's very little empirical evidence that imposing restrictions on ballot access like ID requirements or requiring people to request absentee ballot applications or mail voting generally actually affects turnout or election outcomes generally. It may simply be that most Democrats know that the changes the GOP have made to election laws are not at all likely to result in one-party dominance by the GOP, and are making the strategic decision that the GOP's likely crushing them at the ballot box based on polling on economic issues right now is far more important to counter than their voting issues.

Claiming that the GOP is fascist and wants to kill democracy forever and ever is a useful political argument - but the way Democratic officials are acting may be a better indication of how much credence they really put in that.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Claiming that the GOP is fascist and wants to kill democracy forever and ever is a useful political argument - but . . .

Yes, I've thought for some time that was your take on the issue.

It's not a "political argument." It's reality.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I frankly think you should explain what brilliant strategy would force Manchin to support the Democratic Party's goals and vote with the majority of Democrats for the policies implementing those goals or you should maybe just stop bitching about it.

Actually, that seems pretty unreasonable to me. I can't possibly know all the things that influence Manchin and Sinema. I've never met either of them. When I was working in corporate America and needed to influence other people in government, in other companies or even within my own, I learned that I needed to spend some time to understand as much as I could about their present positions before I approached them to change their minds. Schumer and Biden are more likely to understand what could move them. All I can do as a voter is everything I can to make my opinion and disappointment known to all of those players.

Personally, I have written to Manchin, Biden, and Schumer about my own disappointment in this case of Democratic legislation constipation. I have written to Sinema at least a half-dozen times - and called her office at least 3 or 4 times) since she is actually my Senator. I have also written letters to Sinema's major corporate donors and donated some of my time to a campaign to get them to stop funding her. Although that campaign was successful, it did not accomplish what we had hoped. Her biggest donor in her last campaign no longer lists her as someone they support and has promised not to support her in the future. Unfortunately, Sinema found bigger donors in traditionally Republican donors. But at least we tried. And at least Sinema had to face the fact that her constituents were upset enough to work against her. One other thing I've done regarding Sinema is help establish a constant dialogue about her treachery on AZ DEM social media sites. There are several of us who work to keep at least one conversation about her failure to support Democrat issues in front of the board at all times.

None of these efforts seem to be enough to change the Democratic party legislative lethargy yet. So I am not sure how to accomplish that. But that doesn't mean I have stopped trying.

So I don't know exactly how to solve this . . . yet. But you know what I am pretty sure will not help repair the Democratic party??? That would be blind worship of the party regardless of their performance, and personal attacks directed at long-term Democrats who want the party to do better. That behavior will be exactly what ultimately destroys the Democrats' chances of holding power.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's not a "political argument." It's reality.

Let's try this out, then.

Without googling, what do you think is the single most damaging voter-facing change that the GOP has made to voting laws since the 2020 election that is different than how elections were done in 2018? IOW, substantively what's the single biggest obstacle that the GOP has created to voters casting their ballots that isn't just rolling back something that was done for the first time in 2020?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Without googling, what do you think is the single most damaging voter-facing change that the GOP has made to voting laws since the 2020 election that is different than how elections were done in 2018? IOW, substantively what's the single biggest obstacle that the GOP has created to voters casting their ballots that isn't just rolling back something that was done for the first time in 2020?

Albaby, I’m a fan of yours, but I think you are wrong on this. I broke the rules and googled. Not sure why not googling strengthens your argument. Sure, I could have repeated a handful of the points made in the article, but here’s a link with some examples said better than I could.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/06/14-gop-controll...


AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Manchin has a perfect 100% voting record in support of Biden policies (through December 2nd).

I suspect that's because if Manchin can't be convinced to vote for it, it won't come up for a vote.

Further, when a Biden policy issue holds broader bi-partisan support (i.e. some Republicans are voting for it as well), that frees the most progressive Democrats (and a certain Independent who caucuses with the Democrats) to vote against it to demonstrate their desire for more liberal policies. And since this kind of policy is almost certainly in line with Manchin's views, he doesn't need to be convinced to vote for it, he genuinely supports it.

If you want to look at his support for Biden, look at the bills Biden supported that DIDN'T come up for a vote and see what his public position was on those.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Albaby, I’m a fan of yours, but I think you are wrong on this. I broke the rules and googled. Not sure why not googling strengthens your argument. Sure, I could have repeated a handful of the points made in the article, but here’s a link with some examples said better than I could.

The reason for the 'no Googling' was to illustrate how difficult it is, and will be, for Democrats to break through to voters on this. Those of us that regularly post on this board are way more invested in and aware of political happenings than the average voter. If people that are deeply animated by this issue (like Sandy) don't have examples of these changes that they can actually recall, then very few voters will either - which bodes ill for trying to make this an issue they care about.

As for your article, none of those changes are voter-facing. They don't affect the ability of a voter to cast a ballot. That doesn't mean they're not significant, of course - but that's not what I asked about.

Nor, quite frankly, is there all that great an argument that these changes threaten to change the U.S. from a democracy to not a democracy. Take, for example, the changes to Georgia's election board administration - where the legislature eliminated the Secretary of State's role in the election board. That might have had an impact in 2020 given the particulars and personalities in play, certainly - but let's not forget that in Georgia (as in most states) the Secretary of State is an elected, political, partisan position. Those of us in Florida who remember Katherine Harris are well aware that having the Secretary of State have a big role in your election in no way means you're going to have an objective defender of democracy there. All that Georgia is doing is replacing an overtly partisan official that is directly elected with overtly partisan officials that are appointed by the (also-elected) state legislature. While there are lots of arguments about whether that's a good idea or a bad idea, neither of them is particular more "democracy" than the other. Except that Raffensberger made better choices than Harris did - but that's not a function of the office, but of the person who holds it.

Plus, almost none of these types of things - choices about whether elections administration is staffed at local or state levels, the legal standards for state statutory elections challenges - are anything that the Federal government has any authority to regulate. The Constitution gives states control over how to conduct elections - and while there's lots of room for the Congress to protect the rights of individuals to vote, the mechanics of election administration and the structure of judicial review of elections aren't something that Congress has the ability to legislate on.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I suspect that's because if Manchin can't be convinced to vote for it, it won't come up for a vote.


Makes sense. Why bring something up that's doomed to fail.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
As for your article, none of those changes are voter-facing. They don't affect the ability of a voter to cast a ballot. That doesn't mean they're not significant, of course - but that's not what I asked about.

Maybe not, but that is exactly what worries me most: as the MJ article says, "Twenty-four new laws will 'politicize, criminalize, and interfere in election administration.'”

To my mind, changes to election administration laws are the greatest threat to a 'free and fair election' currently - much more than than the "voter-facing" laws.

If you can get local election officials decertifying results and have the state AG on board, too, this throws the entire election system out of balance, favoring whatever result those factions desire.

Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
To my mind, changes to election administration laws are the greatest threat to a 'free and fair election' currently

This is absolutely correct. When you consider voter ID laws, for example, it is not the ID card that is the problem at all. It is the way Republicans will administer it. The application, distribution and use of the ID cards is how the Republicans have historically used such laws to suppress minority and young voting. They have become very good at this and will be doing it again every chance they get.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Maybe not, but that is exactly what worries me most: as the MJ article says, "Twenty-four new laws will 'politicize, criminalize, and interfere in election administration.'”

To my mind, changes to election administration laws are the greatest threat to a 'free and fair election' currently - much more than than the "voter-facing" laws.


I don't disagree with your assessment that changes to election administration laws can be a much greater threat. Just that Democrats have not yet, and maybe cannot, establish that the specific changes that the GOP has been adopting are doing that.

The MJ article claims that these changes will 'politicize, criminalize, and interfere in election administration' - but that's not necessarily true. As I mentioned in my previous post, for example, Georgia did move the Secretary of State out of the Board of Elections in favor of appointees from the Legislature. That sounds like they're politicizing the Board - except again that the Secretary of State in Georgia is a elected, political, partisan position. If they were taking out non-partisan civil-service positions, it would be one thing - but replacing a naked partisan with another naked partisan doesn't become more institutionally problematic just because we admire the person who held that post in 2020 in a way that we disdain the 2000 Secretary of State in Florida.

Throttling back the ability of local elections administrators to change the rules of elections under emergency powers doesn't turn us into a fascist state. Increasing the degree of judicial supervision of elections doesn't either - in fact, you might even have a Governor Abrams in Georgia right now if there were more available judicial remedies to correct the mischief that elections administrators and the Secretary of State can currently inflict against disfavored candidates.

Too large a portion of these arguments are based on the same corrosive claims that the GOP has been using - "Of course if you give them control over elections they're going to cheat, rather than run them fairly." The GOP has convinced themselves - wrongly - that Democratic partisans that are running the elections in major urban areas are constantly cheating in order to win elections. That, despite the fact that these elections are run with incredibly transparent procedures that require bipartisan participation in monitoring the voting and counting at every step. That's not going to change under these GOP modifications, yet suddenly it's the Democrats that are arguing that the system can't function fairly if different officials get to oversee the neutral election laws - so much so that we're transitioning from Democracy to fascism.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
IOW, substantively what's the single biggest obstacle that the GOP has created to voters casting their ballots that isn't just rolling back something that was done for the first time in 2020?

Wrong question. That is not how the GOP is undermining democracy.

Better question - What is the single biggest thing the GOP is doing to destroy democracy?
Answer - Failing to support the investigation into the Jan 6 attack on Congress. I think that we don't really realize how close we came to a successful coup that day. A violent mob was inside the Capitol building at the same time that the full House and Senate were in session. A session that included the sitting Vice President in his capacity as President of the Senate, and the Vice President elect in one of her final duties as a Senator. We do not know what would have happened if the violent mob and the elected representatives ended up in the same place at the same time. But I don't think that would have ended well. Anyone know how the electoral vote count process works when the Vice President is killed in the middle of the counting?

Another question - How is the GOP gerrymandering districts to improve their odds of winning elections?
Answer - In TX, they're doing enough of it to attract the attention of the DOJ. And you can be sure that if TX is allowed to abridge the rights of voters to elect their representatives in this way, other states will follow as quickly as possible. You don't need to worry about how loose or tight restrictions are on voting itself if you can draw the lines in such a way as to retain a majority of elected representation even when others are actually the majority of voters.

A third question - How else is the GOP undermining democracy?
Answer - By filling the Supreme Court with ideologues. Yes, they followed the letter of the law. But they followed it with a disingenuous spirit, knowing they could twist the letter of the law to their benefit. While it was technically legal to put off the confirmation of Garland and to rush the confirmation of Comey, it doesn't follow the spirit of how things worked in a semi-bipartisan way. Now the process has become much more polarized. Now both parties will see the necessity of blocking nominees when the President and Senate majority are of different parties. This prevents moderate nominees from being considered. More seats will be filled when the President and Senate are of the same party, leading to more polarized nominees ascending to the Court. This could easily lead to whipsaws in the law as the court majority moves around. Instead of tipping slightly one way or the other around a moderate center, the court's decisions will swing wildly to more extreme positions as the court changes over time. We will see more decisions overturned based less on the law and more on political points of view.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Better question - What is the single biggest thing the GOP is doing to destroy democracy?
Answer - Failing to support the investigation into the Jan 6 attack on Congress.


I really doubt that. That's not to diminish how important 1/6 was, or how terrible it could have been. Just that the Congressional investigation isn't going to end up playing an especially pivotal role in the consequences and effects of 1/6. The absence of the GOP is only going to have a modest effect on even that - I doubt very much if McCarthy had chosen to throw some partisan Representatives onto the Committee, rather than sitting it out, that the final report would have been all that materially different.

And again, SLL's point was that the Democrats are under-valuing winning elections in the midterms as a critical part of saving democracy. The Committee will be over and done by then. As will most/all of the gerrymandering, and the GOP stacking the Supreme Court has already happened.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Just that the Congressional investigation isn't going to end up playing an especially pivotal role in the consequences and effects of 1/6.

I think it may be more important than many realize.

By it's very nature, investigating the activities leading up to and including Jan 6 is a partisan venture.

OK - certain parts are not. For example, the investigation and prosecution of those who were inside the building that day is well under way and continuing. But those are the foot soldiers. The patsies. The cannon fodder. Those folks are being charged with relatively straight forward charges. Trespass. Assault. Various property crimes. That part isn't partisan.

But the planning that went into the rally and subsequent ... ummm ... riot? illegal assembly? free speech event? insurrection? ... even finding the right description is fraught with partisan risks ... that part of the investigation is the partisan part.

The House is taking up that partisan activity. And partisan stuff is their bailiwick. It's right up their alley. At any rate, that partisan investigation may turn up evidence of actual crimes. Those can be turned over to the DOJ for further investigation. But the DOJ would have a hard time justifying the level of investigation that is perfectly fine for the House.

The House has taken up the partisan part of the investigation, and will eventually make their report public. It will be loaded with information the DOJ has no business poking around in. Of course, it will have a Democrat spin to it. And that will be so even with a couple of Republicans on the committee. Democrats will hail it, Republicans will denounce it. But it will become part of the public record. There will be lots of unassailable facts in it. And that is where the real value lies.

We will have documentary and sworn testimonial evidence of what happened leading up to and on the day of the event. And much of that evidence would never be admissible in a court, so the DOJ would never make it public.

Frankly, I don't expect more than a couple of token referrals to the DOJ for potential prosecution as a result of the committee's work. Even one charge from that would be a surprise to me, let alone any convictions. But the public report will be a gold mine of information useful to both lawmakers and the general public. Lawmakers may find some ways to craft a few laws as a result of the investigation.

But most importantly, the public will get a good look at what was happening behind the scenes. And that is what we deserve to know. No other investigative body will be able to do the job that the Jan 6 Committee is doing.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
the Secretary of State in Georgia is a elected, political, partisan position. If they were taking out non-partisan civil-service positions, it would be one thing - but replacing a naked partisan with another naked partisan doesn't become more institutionally problematic just because we admire the person who held that post in 2020 in a way that we disdain the 2000 Secretary of State in Florida.

Unless you control how the partisans are appointed to the new positions. Clearly Raffensperger couldn't be counted on. It's like with any partisan effort - you don't have to coach anyone to the "correct" conclusion if you ensure they believe the same things as you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Unless you control how the partisans are appointed to the new positions. Clearly Raffensperger couldn't be counted on. It's like with any partisan effort - you don't have to coach anyone to the "correct" conclusion if you ensure they believe the same things as you.

That's certainly true - but does anyone think that Raffensperger will get elected to Secretary of State again in 2022? And that the new SoS won't be on Team Trump? The point is that SoS is a partisan political position - and although Raffensperger as an individual wasn't a member of "Team Trump," the next SoS is going to be. It's not an apolitical civil service job - it's going to be responsive and reflective of political winds too. The institutional shift to move the SoS out of the election Board doesn't increase the amount of 'politics' in that Board - it just changes it somewhat.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Nothing wrong with ptheland's comment earlier in this thread Wrong question. That is not how the GOP is undermining democracy... But he left out the stealing of future elections by taking over election counting/reporting on the local and state level.

This video clip is actually old in election-stealing news (you can skip ads after a few seconds). Now they are taking over much smaller, less populated counties, replacing black election officials with their own hand-picked, electing stealing officers. Georgia isn't the only state they are going to control, where they can change the votes, throw out any votes they want, and just steal our democracy. Why this isn't a hair-on-fire event with democrats I don't know.
--Linda
p.s. If you haven't been following the details of this issue because our whole world is falling down around us and you just can't keep up, I understand. I urge you to watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE5ev1YkCg4
Nick Corasaniti, a domestic politics reporter for the New York Times, analyses how Georgia Republicans are slowly changing how and who counts votes in GA through the Republican-led state legislature
Print the post Back To Top